On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 01:03:40PM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Niels de Vos <nde...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:26:46PM +0530, Kaushal M wrote: > > > I'd pushed the config to a new branch instead of updating the > > > `refs/meta/config` branch. I've corrected this now. > > > > > > The 3 new labels are, > > > - Smoke > > > - CentOS-regression > > > - NetBSD-regression > > > > > > The new labels are active now. Changes cannot be merged without all of > > > them being +1. Only the bot accounts (Gluster Build System and NetBSD > > > Build System) can set them. > > > > Thanks Kaushal ! > > > > > > It seems that Verified is also a label that is required. Because this is > > now the label for manual testing by reviewers/qa, I do not think it > > should be a requirement anymore. > > > > Could the labels that are needed for merging be setup like this? > > > > Code-Review=+2 && (Verified=+1 || (Smoke=+1 && CentOS-regression=+1 && > > NetBSD-regression=+1)) > > > > I would prefer not having Verified=+1 here. A dev should not be allowed to > override the restrictions.
That works for me too. Niels > > > > > > I managed to get http://review.gluster.org/13208 merged now, please > > check if the added tags in the commit message are ok, or need to get > > modified. > > > > Thanks, > > Niels > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Kaushal M <kshlms...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-infra mailing list Gluster-infra@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra