On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:46:02PM +0530, Kaushal M wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Niels de Vos <nde...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:51:15AM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Atin Mukherjee > >> <atin.mukherje...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > -Atin > >> > Sent from one plus one > >> > On Jan 12, 2016 7:41 PM, "Niels de Vos" <nde...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:21:37PM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > >> > > > We have now changed the gerrit-jenkins workflow as follows: > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. Developer works on a new feature/bug fix and tests it locally(run > >> > > > run-tests.sh completely). > >> > > > 2. Developer sends the patch to gerrit using rfc.sh. > >> > > > > >> > > > +++Note that no regression runs have started automatically for this > >> > patch > >> > > > at this point.+++ > >> > > > > >> > > > 3. Developer marks the patch as +1 verified on gerrit as a promise of > >> > > > having tested the patch completely. For cases where patches don't > >> > > > have > >> > a +1 > >> > > > verified from the developer, maintainer has the following options > >> > > > a. just do the code-review and award a +2 code review. > >> > > > b. pull the patch locally and test completely and award a +1 > >> > > > verified. > >> > > > Both the above actions would result in triggering of regression runs > >> > for > >> > > > the patch. > >> > > > >> > > Would it not help if anyone giving +1 code-review starts the regression > >> > > tests too? When developers ask me to review, I prefer to see reviews > >> > > done by others first, and any regression failures should have been > >> > > fixed > >> > > by the time I look at the change. > >> > When this idea was originated (long back) I was in favour of having > >> > regression triggered on a +1, however verified flag set by the developer > >> > would still trigger the regression. Being a maintainer I would always > >> > prefer to look at a patch when its verified flag is +1 which means the > >> > regression result would also be available. > >> > > >> > >> > >> Niels requested in IRC that it is good have a mechanism of getting all > >> patches that have already passed all regressions before starting review. > >> Here is what I found > >> a. You can use the search string > >> status:open label:Verified+1,user=build AND label:Verified+1,user=nb7build > >> b. You can bookmark this link and it will take you directly to the page > >> with list of such patches. > >> > >> http://review.gluster.org/#/q/status:open+label:Verified%252B1%252Cuser%253Dbuild+AND+label:Verified%252B1%252Cuser%253Dnb7build > > > > Hmm, copy/pasting this URL does not work for me, I get an error: > > > > Code Review - Error > > line 1:26 no viable alternative at character '%' > > [Continue] > > > > > > Kaushal, could you add the following labels to gerrit, so that we can > > update the Jenkins jobs and they can start setting their own labels? > > > > http://review.gluster.org/Documentation/config-labels.html#label_custom > > > > - Smoke: misc smoke testing, compile, bug check, posix, .. > > - NetBSD: NetBSD-7 regression > > - Linux: Linux regression on CentOS-6 > > I added these labels to the gluster projects' project.config, but they > don't seem to be showing up. I'll check once more when I get back > home.
Might need a restart/reload of Gerrit? It seems required for the main gerrit.config file too: http://review.gluster.org/Documentation/config-gerrit.html#_file_code_etc_gerrit_config_code Niels
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-infra mailing list Gluster-infra@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra
