I don't think we need anything formal. Do you want to propose a few simple guidelines?
E.g. Should we link to PRs on JIRA, do we really need a JIRA, the merger is responsible for including the "close #123" syntax in the commit, etc. On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jason Altekruse <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems to be enough consensus that this is beneficial. I took a look at the > bylaws and it doesn't say anything specific there about an official review > process. Is there a need to start a separate vote thread before making a > change like this? > > I would be in favor of allowing both for a little bit, if it is a > significant improvement we can move to completely deprecate reviewboard. > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What did we decide here? > > > > Are we going to move forward with trying out pull requests? If so, do we > > want to start having everyone do it or suggest only one or two do it to > > start? > > > > thoughts? > > Jacques > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I can't remember the rule. I think it was 3gb and 15 minutes. In > order > > > to get under 3 gb, I think we need to run single threaded. Last I > > checked, > > > running with 4 threads on dedicated hardware completes in ~12 minutes. > > > However, the Travis instances used to be really slow virtual machines. > > I'm > > > sure a solution can be found but I think we'd need some concerted > effort > > on > > > reducing the test footprint. > > > > > > We talked before (Daniel's suggestion) about treating more of the tests > > as > > > integration tests. This would help as much of the test time is spent > > > starting and stopping Drillbits for each test class. If we only did > this > > > once for all those tests, the footprint would be much smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > We tried Travis before. The problem is that travis's nodes aren't > > >> > substantial enough to complete our test suite within their timeout. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Haven't the tests been substantially improved since then? > > >> > > >> Can the tests be segregated into pieces so Travis can still do some > > useful > > >> work? > > >> > > > > > > > > >
