Jim and I have been talking about both of these ideas for months. We aren't lacking clever solutions to make this better. However they are lacking implementors. Volunteers welcomed.
Until such time, this is completely solvable problem by people taking and extra 5 seconds before approving a patch to merge. I expect a core reviewer to look back through the history of comments to make sure they aren't ignoring other people's feedback. It doesn't seem unreasonable that people that core reviewers also understand that there is a lot of responsibility with that power, and what the impact on others is if you +A things into the gate. John Griffith <john.griff...@solidfire.com> wrote: >On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/51793/ > >Just curious, what about the possibility of automating this? In other >words, run through idle patches any time the gate volume gets below a >certain threshold. If you come across a patch that hasn't been >visited/modified in over say a week, and it doesn't have any failures >(-1's, -2's etc) then go ahead an run a check on it. The volume will >likely prevent it from keeping all of them updated but it might make a >significant dent. > >Might work, might not. But if the simple action described above >causes *hours* of gate delay it very well may be more than worth >making an attempt to automate IMO. > >John > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Sean Dague http://dague.net _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
