[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564115] need option 'run brick-mux-tests' in reviews

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115



--- Comment #4 from Amar Tumballi  ---
No serious need of 'Vote' at present. This can be 'SUCCESS', 'FAILURE', ABORT
or whatever.. as the person triggering the run, I would look up the result
before voting.

Lets get the basic trigger infra to work first as MVP, then VOTE privilege can
come as much later solution.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Kz1ASEXkDD=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564139] need a test to validate flags and validity of github issues.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564139

Nigel Babu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nig...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Nigel Babu  ---
1. Referencing the wrong issue is not something we can control. You can always
make a mistake in either smoke or bugzilla. That's something I cannot control.
2. The code for ensuring the rest is ready for merge pending agreement from the
community.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IlJI7JM0Sf=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564115] need option 'run brick-mux-tests' in reviews

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115

Nigel Babu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nig...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Nigel Babu  ---
Should this job vote at all? I can have a job that does on-demand running
easily. But having it vote is slightly more challenging (but not impossible).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8e9zVUpZfS=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564149] Agree upon a coding standard, and automate check for this in smoke

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564149



--- Comment #5 from Jeff Darcy  ---
I think we're all in agreement on spaces vs. tabs. Tabs are eight spaces wide,
full stop, end of story. It's kind of survivable with eight-space indents, but
any other indent width becomes a total nightmare if tabs are involved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DdID1I6Srl=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564149] Agree upon a coding standard, and automate check for this in smoke

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564149



--- Comment #4 from Shyamsundar  ---
Overall ack to the proposal.

Nice call-out by Jeff on any other change requiring a big-bang addressing to be
a part of the same.

I can live with 4 spaces :), but no tabs (way too much discrepancy across
editors as pointed out).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PlhQBRYYxh=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564149] Agree upon a coding standard, and automate check for this in smoke

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564149

Xavi Hernandez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jaher...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Xavi Hernandez  ---
I think it's ok to use 4 spaces for indentation. It helps prevent ugly wraps on
some function calls with long names and/or arguments when they are indented.

Regarding the use of tabs, I would prefer to still use spaces instead of tabs.
The traditional tab size is 8 spaces and this is used in (almost ?) all
editors, so to prevent the code from being unreadable if someone uses an
unconfigured editor, we should still use spaces, specially if we change to a 4
spaces indentation.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zuf3rRa054=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564149] New: Agree upon a coding standard, and automate check for this in smoke

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564149

Bug ID: 1564149
   Summary: Agree upon a coding standard, and automate check for
this in smoke
   Product: GlusterFS
   Version: mainline
 Component: project-infrastructure
  Severity: high
  Assignee: b...@gluster.org
  Reporter: atumb...@redhat.com
CC: amukh...@redhat.com, b...@gluster.org,
gluster-infra@gluster.org, j...@pl.atyp.us,
srang...@redhat.com



# Description of problem:

Today, people spend time reviewing the patches for coding standard too. Which
is IMHO a waste of time for all, but is critical to keep the readability in
some consistency for the project.

With the availability of tools like `clang-format` etc, we should move toward
automated check for patch.

# Additional Info:

It means we may have to format the whole project base again with 'clang-format'
first. Also we have to come up with a agreed format spec file.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QzrtlxFRgu=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1563379] infra: smoke glusterfs-logs.tar.gz has core file(s) but not the executables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563379

Kaleb KEITHLEY  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||Triaged
   Assignee|b...@gluster.org|nig...@redhat.com
Summary|infra: smoke|infra: smoke
   |glusterfs-logs.tar.gz has   |glusterfs-logs.tar.gz has
   |core file(s) but not the|core file(s) but not the
   |executable  |executables



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oFQNeZ2xWg=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564139] New: need a test to validate flags and validity of github issues.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564139

Bug ID: 1564139
   Summary: need a test to validate flags and validity of github
issues.
   Product: GlusterFS
   Version: mainline
 Component: project-infrastructure
  Severity: high
  Assignee: b...@gluster.org
  Reporter: atumb...@redhat.com
CC: amukh...@redhat.com, b...@gluster.org,
gluster-infra@gluster.org, j...@pl.atyp.us,
srang...@redhat.com



# Description of problem

Today there is no way to control a reference to wrong github issue, and then
making the smoke tests capture it.

Also, we should get control on labels, where we would always need
'SpecApproved' and 'DocApproved' flags for features.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kB21OazJc0=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1563379] infra: smoke glusterfs-logs.tar.gz has core file(s) but not the executable

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563379

Nigel Babu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nig...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Nigel Babu  ---
Can you link me to a failure?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SRkJwKqeIh=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra

[Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564115] New: need option 'run brick-mux-tests' in reviews

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115

Bug ID: 1564115
   Summary: need option 'run brick-mux-tests' in reviews
   Product: GlusterFS
   Version: mainline
 Component: project-infrastructure
  Severity: high
  Assignee: b...@gluster.org
  Reporter: atumb...@redhat.com
CC: amukh...@redhat.com, b...@gluster.org,
gluster-infra@gluster.org, j...@pl.atyp.us,
srang...@redhat.com



# Description of problem:

Today, if there is a concern in patch related to brick-mux, we ask the
submitter to run the test with another patch which enables brick-mux and then
run regression there to validate the concerns.

The best is, same patchset gets tested with brick-mux, and all the votes are
captured in same patchset.

I prefer command 'run brick-mux regression" to get the tests started. But it is
fine if someone else has some other string for this. All expected out of
resolving bug is announcing which string to add for running brick-mux
regression in ML. 


# Additional info:

Have some more bugs in series. Lets plan to prioritize them properly.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lOhbDZWhJA=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
Gluster-infra@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra