Open Stack

On November 28, 2017 7:37 pm, James E. Blair wrote:
> Jens Harbott <j.harbott at x-ion.de> writes:
> 
>> 2017-11-23 5:28 GMT+00:00 Tristan Cacqueray <tdecacqu at redhat.com>:
>> ...
>>> TL;DR; Is it alright if we re-enable this CI and report those tests on
>>>       zuul-jobs patchsets?
>>
>> I like the general idea, but please wait for more feedback until doing so.
> 
> I am in favor of the idea in general, thanks!
> 
>> Also, IMHO it would be better if you could change the "recheck-sf"
>> trigger to something that does not also rerun upstream checks. What
>> seems to work well for other projects is "run ci-name", where ci-name
>> is the name of the Gerrit account.
> 
> Actually, I'd prefer that we do the opposite.  I'd like the recheck
> command for both to just be "recheck".  There's no harm in both systems
> re-running tests for a change in this case, and it keeps things simpler
> for developers.  The requirements in
> https://docs.openstack.org/infra/system-config/third_party.html#requirements
> state that all systems should honor "recheck".  I'd like to go beyond
> that in zuul-jobs and say that third-party ci systems on that repo
> should *only* honor "recheck".
> 
> In the meeting today we agreed that we should start by reporting without
> voting, gain some confidence, then enable +1/-1 voting.
> 

Now that zuul-jobs correctly run on CentOS I enabled the patchset-created
and recheck comment event filters.

Thanks,
-Tristan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/attachments/20180102/26a383d9/attachment.sig>