No objection from me. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > On nit: as GVD gets more complex, it becomes harder for new people to > understand the messages and +Ns applied to their patches. That doesn't mean > we shouldn't do this, only that it's something to keep an eye on. > > I think this helps with that problem in net by removing the manual rebase > step that people have to remember to do. > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > I've tried my job a few times and it's working as expected. Any > objections > > to me switching over gerrit-verify-dryrun to my approach? > > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Ok, I was able to put together a test job that does the automatic rebase > >> and carries a +2 here: https://jenkins.impala.io/job/ > >> gerrit-verify-dryrun-tarmstrong/ > >> > >> The diff in job config required to get it to work is here: > >> https://jenkins.impala.io/job/gerrit-verify-dryrun-tarmstron > >> g/jobConfigHistory/showDiffFiles?timestamp1=2018-06-07_20- > >> 41-18×tamp2=2018-06-07_21-38-58 > >> > >> I tested by creating some private drafts, adding "Impala Public Jenkins" > >> as a reviewer and testing the various scenarios. > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I agree with both of you. > >>> > >>> On nit: as GVD gets more complex, it becomes harder for new people to > >>> understand the messages and +Ns applied to their patches. That doesn't > >>> mean > >>> we shouldn't do this, only that it's something to keep an eye on. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Philip Zeyliger <phi...@cloudera.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Seems fine, especially since we do the rebase as our submission > >>> strategy > >>> > anyway, so we're already accepting/testing something that's likely to > >>> get > >>> > rebased, and we may as well minimize that window. > >>> > > >>> > I'd be in favor of the bot also carrying the votes. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Tim Armstrong < > tarmstr...@cloudera.com > >>> > > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > One annoyance with our precommit job is the requirement to manually > >>> > rebase > >>> > > the change before starting the merge. Failure to do so either leads > >>> to > >>> > > false positives or false negatives - builds that failed because > they > >>> were > >>> > > missing a flaky/broken test fix and builds that succeeded despite > >>> > > interacting badly with a previous fix. > >>> > > > >>> > > What do people think about modifying gerrit-verify-dryrun to > >>> > automatically > >>> > > rebase the patch (by the programmatic equivalent of hitting the > >>> "Rebase" > >>> > > button) at the start of the job? The patch author would still have > to > >>> > carry > >>> > > the +2 but this might make our lives a bit easier. > >>> > > > >>> > > - Tim > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
