Open Stack

On Tue, May 30, 2017, at 01:45 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> writes:
> 
> > On 2017-05-30 12:53:15 -0700 (-0700), Jesse Keating wrote:
[...]
> >> Personally, my opinions are that to avoid confusion, change type
> >> requirements should always fail on push type events. This means
> >> open, current-patchset, approvals, reviews, labels, and maybe
> >> status requirements would all fail to match a pipeline for a push
> >> type event. It's the least ambiguous, and promotes the practice of
> >> creating a separate pipeline for push like events from change like
> >> events. I welcome other opinions!
> >
> > This seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.
> 
> Agreed -- we haven't run into this condition because our pipelines are
> naturally segregated into change or ref related workflows.  I think
> that's probably going to be the case for most folks, so codifying this
> seems reasonable.  However, I could simply be failing to imagine a
> pipeline that works with both.

+1. I want to say that Gozer ran into some weird behavior at one point
where they were trying to enforce change details on a ref-updated
pipeline and that caused problems. The biggest issue was lack of clear
logging of the issue. We should try to clearly present this mismatch of
info to the user through the logs at the very least to avoid that.

Clark