Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On 2016-01-08 at 12:03 +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > Top posting, this is a very old thread. > > Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs creeping > in, I suggest we do these things right now: > > a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. > As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both > PatchA and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is > possible that a functional bug creeps in. > This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. > I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > > b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation > > Too many developers use the upstream infra as a test cluster and it is > *not*. > It is a verification mechanism for maintainers to ensure that the patch > does not cause regression. > > It is required that all developers run full regression on their machines > before asking for reviews. Hmm, I am not 100% sure I would underwrite that. I am coming from the Samba process, where we have exactly that: A developer should have run full selftest before submitting the change for review. Then after two samba team developers have given their review+ (counting the author), it can be pushed to our automatism that keeps rebasing on current upstream and running selftest until either selftest succeeds and is pushed as a fast forward or selftest fails. The reality is that people are lazy and think they know when they can skip selftest. But people are deceived and overlook problems. Hence either reviewers run into failures or the automatic pre-push selftest fails. The problem I see with this is that it wastes the precios time of the reviewers. When I started contributing to Gluster, I found it to be a big, big plus to have automatic regression runs as a first step after submission, so that a reviewer has the option to only start looking at the patch once automatic tests have passed. I completely agree that the fast-forward-only and post-review-pre-merge-regression-run approach is the way to go, only this way the original problem described by Talur can be avoided. But would it be possible to keep and even require some amount of automatic pre-review test run (build and at least some amount of runtimte test)? It really prevents waste of time of reviewers/maintainers. The problem with this is of course that it can increase the (real) time needed to complete a review from submission until upstream merge. Just a few thoughts... Cheers - Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On Jan 12, 2016 2:50 AM, "Niels de Vos"wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:46:09PM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Kaushal M wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Kaushal M wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Raghavendra Talur < rta...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> Top posting, this is a very old thread. > > > >> > > > >> Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs > > > creeping > > > >> in, I suggest we do these things right now: > > > >> > > > >> a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. > > > >> As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both > > > PatchA > > > >> and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is > > > possible > > > >> that a functional bug creeps in. > > > >> This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. > > > >> I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > > > >> > > > >> b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation > > > > > > > > Making it manual might be too much work for maintainers. I suggest (as > > > > I've suggested before) we make regressions trigger when a change has > > > > been reviewed +2 by a maintainer. > > > > > > > > > > > Makes sense. I have disabled it completely for now and lets keep it that > > way till > > developers realize it(a day should be enough). We will change this trigger > > to on Code Review +2 by tomorrow. > > Ah! And I have been wondering why patches don't get verified > anymore :-/ > > An email to the maintainers list as a heads up would have been welcome. > > How would we handle patches that get sent by maintainers? Most > developers that do code reviews will only +1 those changes. Those will > never get automatically regression tested then. I dont think a > maintainer should +2 their own patch immediately either, that suggests > no further reviews are needed. > > Niels After realising this we configured Jenkins to be triggered either on code review +2 or a verified +1. Even if it is the maintainer who sent the patch, he/she can certainly give a +1 verified. There seems to be some problem with both these type of events though. I tried various combinations yesterday, yet the events don't reach Jenkins. I am afraid we will have to go back to patch set triggers until we update our plugins. ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
Niels de Voswrote: > How would we handle patches that get sent by maintainers? Most > developers that do code reviews will only +1 those changes. Those will > never get automatically regression tested then. I dont think a > maintainer should +2 their own patch immediately either, that suggests > no further reviews are needed. Indeed it is a bit odd, but I just CR +2 my own changes... -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz m...@netbsd.org ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On Jan 12, 2016 3:44 AM, "Michael Adam"wrote: > > On 2016-01-08 at 12:03 +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > > Top posting, this is a very old thread. > > > > Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs creeping > > in, I suggest we do these things right now: > > > > a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. > > As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both > > PatchA and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is > > possible that a functional bug creeps in. > > This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. > > I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > > > > b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation > > > > Too many developers use the upstream infra as a test cluster and it is > > *not*. > > It is a verification mechanism for maintainers to ensure that the patch > > does not cause regression. > > > > It is required that all developers run full regression on their machines > > before asking for reviews. > > Hmm, I am not 100% sure I would underwrite that. > I am coming from the Samba process, where we have exactly > that: A developer should have run full selftest before > submitting the change for review. Then after two samba > team developers have given their review+ (counting the > author), it can be pushed to our automatism that keeps > rebasing on current upstream and running selftest until > either selftest succeeds and is pushed as a fast forward > or selftest fails. > > The reality is that people are lazy and think they know > when they can skip selftest. But people are deceived and > overlook problems. Hence either reviewers run into failures > or the automatic pre-push selftest fails. The problem > I see with this is that it wastes the precios time of > the reviewers. > > When I started contributing to Gluster, I found it to > be a big, big plus to have automatic regression runs > as a first step after submission, so that a reviewer > has the option to only start looking at the patch once > automatic tests have passed. > > I completely agree that the fast-forward-only and > post-review-pre-merge-regression-run approach > is the way to go, only this way the original problem > described by Talur can be avoided. > > But would it be possible to keep and even require some > amount of automatic pre-review test run (build and at > least some amount of runtimte test)? > It really prevents waste of time of reviewers/maintainers. > > The problem with this is of course that it can increase > the (real) time needed to complete a review from submission > until upstream merge. > > Just a few thoughts... > > Cheers - Michael > We had same concern from many other maintainers. I guess it would be better if test runs both before and after review. With these changes we would have removed test runs of work in progress patches. ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
- Original Message - > From: "Raghavendra Talur" <rta...@redhat.com> > To: "Michael Adam" <ob...@samba.org> > Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org> > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:46:05 AM > Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing > > > > > On Jan 12, 2016 3:44 AM, "Michael Adam" < ob...@samba.org > wrote: > > > > On 2016-01-08 at 12:03 +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > > > Top posting, this is a very old thread. > > > > > > Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs > > > creeping > > > in, I suggest we do these things right now: > > > > > > a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. > > > As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both > > > PatchA and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is > > > possible that a functional bug creeps in. > > > This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. > > > I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > > > > > > b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation > > > > > > Too many developers use the upstream infra as a test cluster and it is > > > *not*. > > > It is a verification mechanism for maintainers to ensure that the patch > > > does not cause regression. > > > > > > It is required that all developers run full regression on their machines > > > before asking for reviews. > > > > Hmm, I am not 100% sure I would underwrite that. > > I am coming from the Samba process, where we have exactly > > that: A developer should have run full selftest before > > submitting the change for review. Then after two samba > > team developers have given their review+ (counting the > > author), it can be pushed to our automatism that keeps > > rebasing on current upstream and running selftest until > > either selftest succeeds and is pushed as a fast forward > > or selftest fails. > > > > The reality is that people are lazy and think they know > > when they can skip selftest. But people are deceived and > > overlook problems. Hence either reviewers run into failures > > or the automatic pre-push selftest fails. The problem > > I see with this is that it wastes the precios time of > > the reviewers. > > > > When I started contributing to Gluster, I found it to > > be a big, big plus to have automatic regression runs > > as a first step after submission, so that a reviewer > > has the option to only start looking at the patch once > > automatic tests have passed. > > > > I completely agree that the fast-forward-only and > > post-review-pre-merge-regression-run approach > > is the way to go, only this way the original problem > > described by Talur can be avoided. > > > > But would it be possible to keep and even require some > > amount of automatic pre-review test run (build and at > > least some amount of runtimte test)? > > It really prevents waste of time of reviewers/maintainers. > > > > The problem with this is of course that it can increase > > the (real) time needed to complete a review from submission > > until upstream merge. > > > > Just a few thoughts... > > > > Cheers - Michael > > > > We had same concern from many other maintainers. I guess it would be better > if test runs both before and after review. With these changes we would have > removed test runs of work in progress patches. Yes. I think It would be better one set of regressions to be run before a +1. Normally it takes couple of iterations to +1 a patch. So, I think it would unnecessarily serialize regression runs and review. If reviews are run parallely, developers can work on regression failures parallely while others do the review. > > ___ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:46:09PM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Kaushal Mwrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Kaushal M wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Raghavendra Talur > > wrote: > > >> Top posting, this is a very old thread. > > >> > > >> Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs > > creeping > > >> in, I suggest we do these things right now: > > >> > > >> a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. > > >> As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both > > PatchA > > >> and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is > > possible > > >> that a functional bug creeps in. > > >> This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. > > >> I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > > >> > > >> b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation > > > > > > Making it manual might be too much work for maintainers. I suggest (as > > > I've suggested before) we make regressions trigger when a change has > > > been reviewed +2 by a maintainer. > > > > > > > Makes sense. I have disabled it completely for now and lets keep it that > way till > developers realize it(a day should be enough). We will change this trigger > to on Code Review +2 by tomorrow. Ah! And I have been wondering why patches don't get verified anymore :-/ An email to the maintainers list as a heads up would have been welcome. How would we handle patches that get sent by maintainers? Most developers that do code reviews will only +1 those changes. Those will never get automatically regression tested then. I dont think a maintainer should +2 their own patch immediately either, that suggests no further reviews are needed. Niels signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
Top posting, this is a very old thread. Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs creeping in, I suggest we do these things right now: a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both PatchA and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is possible that a functional bug creeps in. This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. I will work with Kaushal to get this done. b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation Too many developers use the upstream infra as a test cluster and it is *not*. It is a verification mechanism for maintainers to ensure that the patch does not cause regression. It is required that all developers run full regression on their machines before asking for reviews. Reviewers should review the patch only when the developer has given a +1 verified on the patch. Again, I will work with Kaushal to get this done. P.S: Stop using the "universal" jenkins account to trigger jenkins build if you are not a maintainer. If you are a maintainer and don't have your own jenkins account then get one soon! Thanks, Raghavendra Talur On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Atin Mukherjee <atin.mukherje...@gmail.com > wrote: > -Atin > Sent from one plus one > > On Nov 10, 2015 11:24 AM, "Kaushal M" <kshlms...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa > > <rgowd...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > >> From: "Raghavendra Talur" <rta...@redhat.com> > > >> To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3:10:34 AM > > >> Subject: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins > testing > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> While trying to understand how our gerrit+jenkins setup works, I > realized of > > >> a possibility of allowing bugs to get in. > > >> > > >> Currently, our gerrit is setup to have cherry-pick as the submit > type. Now > > >> consider a case where: > > >> > > >> Dev1 sends a commit B with parent commit A(A is already merged). > > >> Dev2 sends a commit C with parent commit A(A is already merged). > > >> > > >> Both the patches get +2 from Jenkins. > > >> > > >> Maintainer merges commit B from Dev1. > > >> Another maintainer merges commit C from Dev2. > > >> > > >> If the two commits B and C changed code which had no merge conflicts > but were > > >> conflicting in logic, > > >> then we have a master which has bugs. > > >> > > >> If Dev3 now sends a commit D with re-based master as parent, we have > the > > >> following cases: > > >> > > >> 1. If bug introduced above is not racy, we have tests always failing > for Dev3 > > >> on commit D. Tests that fail would be from components that commit B > and C > > >> changed. Dev3 has no idea on how to fix them and has to enlist help > from > > >> Dev1 and Dev2. > > >> > > >> 2. If bug introduced above is racy, then there is a probability that > Dev3 > > >> escapes from this trouble and someone else will bear it later. Even > if the > > >> racy code is hit and test fails, Dev3 will probably re-trigger the > tests > > >> given that they failed for a component which is not related to > his/her code > > >> and the bug stays in code longer. > > >> > > >> The most obvious but not practical solution to the above problem is > to change > > >> the submit type in gerrit to "fast-forward only". It would then > ensure that > > >> once commit B is merged, Dev2 has to re-base and re-run the tests on > commit > > >> C with commit B as parent, before it could be merged. It is not > practical > > >> because it will cause all patches in review to get re-based and > re-triggered > > >> whenever a patch is merged. > > >> > > >> A little modification to the above solution would be to > > >> > > >> > > >> * change submit type to fast-forward only > > >> * don't run any jenkins job on patches till they get +2 from > reviewers > > >> * once a +2 is given, run jenkins job on patch and automatically > submit > > >> it if test passes. > > >> * automatically rebase a
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Kaushal Mwrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: >> Top posting, this is a very old thread. >> >> Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs creeping >> in, I suggest we do these things right now: >> >> a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. >> As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both PatchA >> and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is possible >> that a functional bug creeps in. >> This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. >> I will work with Kaushal to get this done. >> >> b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation > > Making it manual might be too much work for maintainers. I suggest (as > I've suggested before) we make regressions trigger when a change has > been reviewed +2 by a maintainer. > >> >> Too many developers use the upstream infra as a test cluster and it is >> *not*. >> It is a verification mechanism for maintainers to ensure that the patch does >> not cause regression. >> It is required that all developers run full regression on their machines >> before asking for reviews. >> Reviewers should review the patch only when the developer has given a +1 >> verified on the patch. >> Again, I will work with Kaushal to get this done. >> >> P.S: Stop using the "universal" jenkins account to trigger jenkins build if >> you are not a maintainer. >> If you are a maintainer and don't have your own jenkins account then get one >> soon! > > I think I'll go ahead and remove this account. This is done now. > >> >> Thanks, >> Raghavendra Talur >> ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Kaushal Mwrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Kaushal M wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Raghavendra Talur > wrote: > >> Top posting, this is a very old thread. > >> > >> Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs > creeping > >> in, I suggest we do these things right now: > >> > >> a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. > >> As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both > PatchA > >> and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is > possible > >> that a functional bug creeps in. > >> This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. > >> I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > >> > >> b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation > > > > Making it manual might be too much work for maintainers. I suggest (as > > I've suggested before) we make regressions trigger when a change has > > been reviewed +2 by a maintainer. > > > Makes sense. I have disabled it completely for now and lets keep it that way till developers realize it(a day should be enough). We will change this trigger to on Code Review +2 by tomorrow. >> > >> Too many developers use the upstream infra as a test cluster and it is > >> *not*. > >> It is a verification mechanism for maintainers to ensure that the patch > does > >> not cause regression. > >> It is required that all developers run full regression on their machines > >> before asking for reviews. > >> Reviewers should review the patch only when the developer has given a +1 > >> verified on the patch. > >> Again, I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > >> > >> P.S: Stop using the "universal" jenkins account to trigger jenkins > build if > >> you are not a maintainer. > >> If you are a maintainer and don't have your own jenkins account then > get one > >> soon! > > > > I think I'll go ahead and remove this account. > > This is done now. > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Raghavendra Talur > >> > ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Raghavendra Talurwrote: > Top posting, this is a very old thread. > > Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs creeping > in, I suggest we do these things right now: > > a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only. > As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both PatchA > and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is possible > that a functional bug creeps in. > This is the only solution to prevent that from happening. > I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > > b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation Making it manual might be too much work for maintainers. I suggest (as I've suggested before) we make regressions trigger when a change has been reviewed +2 by a maintainer. > > Too many developers use the upstream infra as a test cluster and it is > *not*. > It is a verification mechanism for maintainers to ensure that the patch does > not cause regression. > It is required that all developers run full regression on their machines > before asking for reviews. > Reviewers should review the patch only when the developer has given a +1 > verified on the patch. > Again, I will work with Kaushal to get this done. > > P.S: Stop using the "universal" jenkins account to trigger jenkins build if > you are not a maintainer. > If you are a maintainer and don't have your own jenkins account then get one > soon! I think I'll go ahead and remove this account. > > Thanks, > Raghavendra Talur > ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
[Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
Hi, While trying to understand how our gerrit+jenkins setup works, I realized of a possibility of allowing bugs to get in. Currently, our gerrit is setup to have cherry-pick as the submit type. Now consider a case where: Dev1 sends a commit B with parent commit A(A is already merged). Dev2 sends a commit C with parent commit A(A is already merged). Both the patches get +2 from Jenkins. Maintainer merges commit B from Dev1. Another maintainer merges commit C from Dev2. If the two commits B and C changed code which had no merge conflicts but were conflicting in logic, then we have a master which has bugs. If Dev3 now sends a commit D with re-based master as parent, we have the following cases: 1. If bug introduced above is not racy, we have tests always failing for Dev3 on commit D. Tests that fail would be from components that commit B and C changed. Dev3 has no idea on how to fix them and has to enlist help from Dev1 and Dev2. 2. If bug introduced above is racy, then there is a probability that Dev3 escapes from this trouble and someone else will bear it later. Even if the racy code is hit and test fails, Dev3 will probably re-trigger the tests given that they failed for a component which is not related to his/her code and the bug stays in code longer. The most obvious but not practical solution to the above problem is to change the submit type in gerrit to "fast-forward only". It would then ensure that once commit B is merged, Dev2 has to re-base and re-run the tests on commit C with commit B as parent, before it could be merged. It is not practical because it will cause all patches in review to get re-based and re-triggered whenever a patch is merged. A little modification to the above solution would be to - change submit type to fast-forward only - don't run any jenkins job on patches till they get +2 from reviewers - once a +2 is given, run jenkins job on patch and automatically submit it if test passes. - automatically rebase all patches on review with new master and mark conflict if merge conflict arises. As a side effect of this, Dev would now be forced to run a complete regression on dev machine before sending a patch for review. Any thoughts on the above solutions or other suggestions? Thanks, Raghavendra Talur ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
-Atin Sent from one plus one On Nov 10, 2015 11:24 AM, "Kaushal M" <kshlms...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa > <rgowd...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > >> From: "Raghavendra Talur" <rta...@redhat.com> > >> To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3:10:34 AM > >> Subject: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> While trying to understand how our gerrit+jenkins setup works, I realized of > >> a possibility of allowing bugs to get in. > >> > >> Currently, our gerrit is setup to have cherry-pick as the submit type. Now > >> consider a case where: > >> > >> Dev1 sends a commit B with parent commit A(A is already merged). > >> Dev2 sends a commit C with parent commit A(A is already merged). > >> > >> Both the patches get +2 from Jenkins. > >> > >> Maintainer merges commit B from Dev1. > >> Another maintainer merges commit C from Dev2. > >> > >> If the two commits B and C changed code which had no merge conflicts but were > >> conflicting in logic, > >> then we have a master which has bugs. > >> > >> If Dev3 now sends a commit D with re-based master as parent, we have the > >> following cases: > >> > >> 1. If bug introduced above is not racy, we have tests always failing for Dev3 > >> on commit D. Tests that fail would be from components that commit B and C > >> changed. Dev3 has no idea on how to fix them and has to enlist help from > >> Dev1 and Dev2. > >> > >> 2. If bug introduced above is racy, then there is a probability that Dev3 > >> escapes from this trouble and someone else will bear it later. Even if the > >> racy code is hit and test fails, Dev3 will probably re-trigger the tests > >> given that they failed for a component which is not related to his/her code > >> and the bug stays in code longer. > >> > >> The most obvious but not practical solution to the above problem is to change > >> the submit type in gerrit to "fast-forward only". It would then ensure that > >> once commit B is merged, Dev2 has to re-base and re-run the tests on commit > >> C with commit B as parent, before it could be merged. It is not practical > >> because it will cause all patches in review to get re-based and re-triggered > >> whenever a patch is merged. > >> > >> A little modification to the above solution would be to > >> > >> > >> * change submit type to fast-forward only > >> * don't run any jenkins job on patches till they get +2 from reviewers > >> * once a +2 is given, run jenkins job on patch and automatically submit > >> it if test passes. > >> * automatically rebase all patches on review with new master and mark > >> conflict if merge conflict arises. > > > > Seems like a good suggestion. How about a slight variation to the above process? Can we run one initial set of regression immediately after submission, but before any reviews? That way reviewers can prioritize those patches that have passed regression over the ones that have failed? Flip side is that minimum two sets of regressions are needed to merge any patch. I am making this suggestion with the assumption that dev/reviewer time is more precious than machine time. Of course, this will have issues with patches that need to get in urgently (user/customer hot fix etc) where time is a constraint. But that can be worked around on a case-by-case basis. > > We would still be running smoke, which would catch any very obvious > mistakes, isn't this enough? > > Regarding the initial regression run, would it include the complete > regression suite or just a subset. If it is the complete set, then it > would be no different from what we are doing now. If it is a subset, > then we will need to come up with a subset of the regression suite > that catches most of obvious mistakes. We've had discussions several > times (don't remember if it was on the mailing lists, but I have had > conversations) about doing this. Every time we ended up on the > question of how we choose the subset, which is where we stopped. How about running tests/basic/*.t? I know coverage wise this isn't good enough, but still better than running everything or nothing. > > > > >> > >> As a side effect of this, Dev would now be forced to run a complete > >&g
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowd...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: "Raghavendra Talur" <rta...@redhat.com> >> To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3:10:34 AM >> Subject: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing >> >> Hi, >> >> While trying to understand how our gerrit+jenkins setup works, I realized of >> a possibility of allowing bugs to get in. >> >> Currently, our gerrit is setup to have cherry-pick as the submit type. Now >> consider a case where: >> >> Dev1 sends a commit B with parent commit A(A is already merged). >> Dev2 sends a commit C with parent commit A(A is already merged). >> >> Both the patches get +2 from Jenkins. >> >> Maintainer merges commit B from Dev1. >> Another maintainer merges commit C from Dev2. >> >> If the two commits B and C changed code which had no merge conflicts but were >> conflicting in logic, >> then we have a master which has bugs. >> >> If Dev3 now sends a commit D with re-based master as parent, we have the >> following cases: >> >> 1. If bug introduced above is not racy, we have tests always failing for Dev3 >> on commit D. Tests that fail would be from components that commit B and C >> changed. Dev3 has no idea on how to fix them and has to enlist help from >> Dev1 and Dev2. >> >> 2. If bug introduced above is racy, then there is a probability that Dev3 >> escapes from this trouble and someone else will bear it later. Even if the >> racy code is hit and test fails, Dev3 will probably re-trigger the tests >> given that they failed for a component which is not related to his/her code >> and the bug stays in code longer. >> >> The most obvious but not practical solution to the above problem is to change >> the submit type in gerrit to "fast-forward only". It would then ensure that >> once commit B is merged, Dev2 has to re-base and re-run the tests on commit >> C with commit B as parent, before it could be merged. It is not practical >> because it will cause all patches in review to get re-based and re-triggered >> whenever a patch is merged. >> >> A little modification to the above solution would be to >> >> >> * change submit type to fast-forward only >> * don't run any jenkins job on patches till they get +2 from reviewers >> * once a +2 is given, run jenkins job on patch and automatically submit >> it if test passes. >> * automatically rebase all patches on review with new master and mark >> conflict if merge conflict arises. > > Seems like a good suggestion. How about a slight variation to the above > process? Can we run one initial set of regression immediately after > submission, but before any reviews? That way reviewers can prioritize those > patches that have passed regression over the ones that have failed? Flip side > is that minimum two sets of regressions are needed to merge any patch. I am > making this suggestion with the assumption that dev/reviewer time is more > precious than machine time. Of course, this will have issues with patches > that need to get in urgently (user/customer hot fix etc) where time is a > constraint. But that can be worked around on a case-by-case basis. We would still be running smoke, which would catch any very obvious mistakes, isn't this enough? Regarding the initial regression run, would it include the complete regression suite or just a subset. If it is the complete set, then it would be no different from what we are doing now. If it is a subset, then we will need to come up with a subset of the regression suite that catches most of obvious mistakes. We've had discussions several times (don't remember if it was on the mailing lists, but I have had conversations) about doing this. Every time we ended up on the question of how we choose the subset, which is where we stopped. > >> >> As a side effect of this, Dev would now be forced to run a complete >> regression on dev machine before sending a patch for review. >> >> Any thoughts on the above solutions or other suggestions? >> >> Thanks, >> Raghavendra Talur >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@gluster.org >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > ___ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On 11/10/2015 03:10 AM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > Hi, > > While trying to understand how our gerrit+jenkins setup works, I > realized of a possibility of allowing bugs to get in. > > Currently, our gerrit is setup to have cherry-pick as the submit type. > Now consider a case where: > > Dev1 sends a commit B with parent commit A(A is already merged). > Dev2 sends a commit C with parent commit A(A is already merged). > > Both the patches get +2 from Jenkins. > > Maintainer merges commit B from Dev1. > Another maintainer merges commit C from Dev2. > > If the two commits B and C changed code which had no merge conflicts but > were conflicting in logic, > then we have a master which has bugs. > > If Dev3 now sends a commit D with re-based master as parent, we have the > following cases: > > 1. If bug introduced above is not racy, we have tests always failing for > Dev3 on commit D. Tests that fail would be from components that commit B > and C changed. Dev3 has no idea on how to fix them and has to enlist > help from Dev1 and Dev2. > > 2. If bug introduced above is racy, then there is a probability that > Dev3 escapes from this trouble and someone else will bear it later. Even > if the racy code is hit and test fails, Dev3 will probably re-trigger > the tests given that they failed for a component which is not related to > his/her code and the bug stays in code longer. > > The most obvious but not practical solution to the above problem is to > change the submit type in gerrit to "fast-forward only". It would then > ensure that once commit B is merged, Dev2 has to re-base and re-run the > tests on commit C with commit B as parent, before it could be merged. It > is not practical because it will cause all patches in review to get > re-based and re-triggered whenever a patch is merged. > > A little modification to the above solution would be to > > * change submit type to fast-forward only > * don't run any jenkins job on patches till they get +2 from reviewers > * once a +2 is given, run jenkins job on patch and automatically > submit it if test passes. > * automatically rebase all patches on review with new master and mark > conflict if merge conflict arises. The overall idea looks good to me, however I'd be bit hesitant to give a +2 before seeing the regression votes until and unless the patch is pretty straight forwad. For me +1 sounds to be a good level to trigger the regression. Once the regression passes, maintainers can +2 a patch and then merge it manually. And then the 4th point follows. Thoughts? ~Atin > > As a side effect of this, Dev would now be forced to run a complete > regression on dev machine before sending a patch for review. > > Any thoughts on the above solutions or other suggestions? > > Thanks, > Raghavendra Talur > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Raghavendra Talurwrote: > Hi, > > While trying to understand how our gerrit+jenkins setup works, I realized of > a possibility of allowing bugs to get in. > > Currently, our gerrit is setup to have cherry-pick as the submit type. Now > consider a case where: > > Dev1 sends a commit B with parent commit A(A is already merged). > Dev2 sends a commit C with parent commit A(A is already merged). > > Both the patches get +2 from Jenkins. > > Maintainer merges commit B from Dev1. > Another maintainer merges commit C from Dev2. > > If the two commits B and C changed code which had no merge conflicts but > were conflicting in logic, > then we have a master which has bugs. > > If Dev3 now sends a commit D with re-based master as parent, we have the > following cases: > > 1. If bug introduced above is not racy, we have tests always failing for > Dev3 on commit D. Tests that fail would be from components that commit B and > C changed. Dev3 has no idea on how to fix them and has to enlist help from > Dev1 and Dev2. > > 2. If bug introduced above is racy, then there is a probability that Dev3 > escapes from this trouble and someone else will bear it later. Even if the > racy code is hit and test fails, Dev3 will probably re-trigger the tests > given that they failed for a component which is not related to his/her code > and the bug stays in code longer. > > The most obvious but not practical solution to the above problem is to > change the submit type in gerrit to "fast-forward only". It would then > ensure that once commit B is merged, Dev2 has to re-base and re-run the > tests on commit C with commit B as parent, before it could be merged. It is > not practical because it will cause all patches in review to get re-based > and re-triggered whenever a patch is merged. > > A little modification to the above solution would be to > > change submit type to fast-forward only > don't run any jenkins job on patches till they get +2 from reviewers > once a +2 is given, run jenkins job on patch and automatically submit it if > test passes. > automatically rebase all patches on review with new master and mark conflict > if merge conflict arises. Have you checked if this is even possible? > > As a side effect of this, Dev would now be forced to run a complete > regression on dev machine before sending a patch for review. > > Any thoughts on the above solutions or other suggestions? > > Thanks, > Raghavendra Talur > > > > > > > > > > ___ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing
- Original Message - > From: "Raghavendra Talur" <rta...@redhat.com> > To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3:10:34 AM > Subject: [Gluster-devel] Gerrit review, submit type and Jenkins testing > > Hi, > > While trying to understand how our gerrit+jenkins setup works, I realized of > a possibility of allowing bugs to get in. > > Currently, our gerrit is setup to have cherry-pick as the submit type. Now > consider a case where: > > Dev1 sends a commit B with parent commit A(A is already merged). > Dev2 sends a commit C with parent commit A(A is already merged). > > Both the patches get +2 from Jenkins. > > Maintainer merges commit B from Dev1. > Another maintainer merges commit C from Dev2. > > If the two commits B and C changed code which had no merge conflicts but were > conflicting in logic, > then we have a master which has bugs. > > If Dev3 now sends a commit D with re-based master as parent, we have the > following cases: > > 1. If bug introduced above is not racy, we have tests always failing for Dev3 > on commit D. Tests that fail would be from components that commit B and C > changed. Dev3 has no idea on how to fix them and has to enlist help from > Dev1 and Dev2. > > 2. If bug introduced above is racy, then there is a probability that Dev3 > escapes from this trouble and someone else will bear it later. Even if the > racy code is hit and test fails, Dev3 will probably re-trigger the tests > given that they failed for a component which is not related to his/her code > and the bug stays in code longer. > > The most obvious but not practical solution to the above problem is to change > the submit type in gerrit to "fast-forward only". It would then ensure that > once commit B is merged, Dev2 has to re-base and re-run the tests on commit > C with commit B as parent, before it could be merged. It is not practical > because it will cause all patches in review to get re-based and re-triggered > whenever a patch is merged. > > A little modification to the above solution would be to > > > * change submit type to fast-forward only > * don't run any jenkins job on patches till they get +2 from reviewers > * once a +2 is given, run jenkins job on patch and automatically submit > it if test passes. > * automatically rebase all patches on review with new master and mark > conflict if merge conflict arises. Seems like a good suggestion. How about a slight variation to the above process? Can we run one initial set of regression immediately after submission, but before any reviews? That way reviewers can prioritize those patches that have passed regression over the ones that have failed? Flip side is that minimum two sets of regressions are needed to merge any patch. I am making this suggestion with the assumption that dev/reviewer time is more precious than machine time. Of course, this will have issues with patches that need to get in urgently (user/customer hot fix etc) where time is a constraint. But that can be worked around on a case-by-case basis. > > As a side effect of this, Dev would now be forced to run a complete > regression on dev machine before sending a patch for review. > > Any thoughts on the above solutions or other suggestions? > > Thanks, > Raghavendra Talur > > > > > > > > > > ___ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel