+1 to override in extreme circumstances
-1 to have an override flag with simple access for the common man.
I think we need a "break glass" override..
but not something that is easily accessible. The 99.999999999% case has
to go through the current process and constraints...
BUT I think we need to have a "break glass" capability.
--Udo
On 10/30/19 1:58 PM, Owen Nichols wrote:
How do you override a check, anyway?
Much like asking for jira permissions, wiki permissions, etc, just ask on the
dev list ;)
Presumably this type of request would be made as a “last resort” following a
dev list discussion wherein all other reasonable options had been exhausted
(reworking or splitting up the PR, pushing empty commits, rebasing the PR, etc)
On Oct 30, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
+1 for allowing overrides. I think we should avoid backing ourselves into a
corner where we can't get anything into develop without talking to apache
infra. Some infrastructure things we can't even fix without pushing a
change develop!
How do you override a check, anyway?
-Dan
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:58 PM Donal Evans <doev...@pivotal.io> wrote:
-1 to overriding from me.
The question I have here is what's the rush? Is anything ever so
time-sensitive that you can't even wait the 15 minutes it takes for it to
build and run unit tests? If some infrastructure problem is preventing
builds or tests from completing then that should be fixed before any new
changes are added, otherwise what's the point in even having the pre
check-in process?
-Donal
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:44 AM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> wrote:
@Aaron
It's okay to wait for at least the build, and unit tests to complete, to
cover all the bases. [There may have been commits in between which may
result in failure because of the revert] And it's not hard to get a PR
approval.
-1 on overriding. If the infrastructure is down, which is the test
framework designed to ensure that we are not checking in unwanted changes
into Apache Geode, wait for the infrastructure to be up, get your changes
verified, get the review from a fellow committer and then check-in your
changes.
I still don't understand why will anyone not wait for unit tests and
build
to be successful.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:32 AM Aaron Lindsey <alind...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
One case when it might be acceptable to overrule a PR check is
reverting
a
commit. Before the branch protection was enabled, a committer could
revert
a commit without a PR. Now that PRs are mandatory, we have to wait for
the
checks to run in order to revert a commit. Usually we are reverting a
commit because it's causing problems, so I think overruling the PR
checks
may be acceptable in that case.
- Aaron
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
Our new branch-protection rules can sometimes lead to unexpected
obstacles
when infrastructure issues impede the intended process. Should we
discuss
such cases as they come up, and should overruling the result of a PR
check
ever be an option on the table?
-Owen
