Open Stack

On 08/12/2014 07:17 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2014-08-12 17:43:37 +1000 (+1000), Joshua Hesketh wrote:
>> Right, and even if we did change all the 3rd parties over to
>> something that doesn't start with 'recheck' there will be
>> inconsistencies between 3rd parties and 1st party.
> [...]
> 
> If this is really something the various CI operators want to support
> (rather than merely something which has been cargo-culted as a
> behavior they're expected to emulate), I think we need a separate
> syntax for it which lacks the encumbrance of the currently ambiguous
> "recheck" ad-hoc language which has grown arbitrarily by convention.
> 
> However, I also don't personally think that rechecking one specific
> CI makes sense, and would rather just have them all run every time
> you say "recheck" since otherwise you end up pin-and-tumbler
> lockpicking racy bugs (selectively rerererecheck each CI until you
> get a good run and then hold that result while you work through the
> rest of them in turn).
> 
> I'm less worried about the small amount of resource waste in the
> upstream OpenStack project infrastructure from people getting jobs
> rerun when they recheck for some failed third-party result. The
> expectation we ultimately need to set is that every CI should pass
> pretty much all of the time on a good change and if it doesn't then
> it must be fixed (upstream CI included). Allowing you to selectively
> rerun jobs from one system reinforces the idea that it's okay to
> fail frequently as long as devs are eventually able to coax out a
> passing run.
> 
I'm not sure if the folks on this thread are aware of this patch
offering yet: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109565/

It would be great to get your thoughts on it.

Thanks,
Anita.