Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2013-11-25 06:52:02 -0800: > > On 11/25/2013 04:23 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Joe Gordon's message of 2013-11-24 21:00:58 -0800: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> TL;DR Last week the gate got wedged on nondeterministic failures. Unwedging > >> the gate required drastic actions to fix bugs. > >> > >> > > <snip> > > > > (great write-up, thank you for the details, and thank you for fixing > > it!) > > > >> > >> Now that we have the gate back into working order, we are working on the > >> next steps to prevent this from happening again. The two most immediate > >> changes are: > >> > >> - Doing a better job of triaging gate bugs ( > >> > >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-November/020048.html > >> ). > >> > >> > >> - In the next few days we will remove 'reverify no bug' (although you > >> will still be able to run 'reverify bug x'. > >> > > > > I am curious, why not also disable 'recheck no bug'? > > recheck no bug still has a host of valid use cases. Often times I use it > when I upload a patch, it fails because of a thing somewhere else, we > fix that, and I need to recheck the patch because it should work now. > > It's also not nearly as dangerous as reverify no bug. >
"...somewhere else, we fix that..." -- Would it be useful to track that in a bug? Would that help elastic-recheck work better if all the problems caused by a bug elsewhere were reported as bugs? _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev