On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Niels de Vos <nde...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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
I was using Chromium and did a restart. Both hadn't helped. I'll try again. > > Niels _______________________________________________ Gluster-infra mailing list Gluster-infra@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra