----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Still" <mi...@stillhq.com> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:16 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Turbo-hipster > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Still <mi...@stillhq.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:24 AM, James E. Blair <jebl...@openstack.org> > > wrote: > > > >> However, there are _a lot_ of third-party test systems coming on-line, > >> and I'm not sure that expanding the "recheck language" to support ever > >> more complexity is a good idea. I can see how being able to say > >> "recheck foo" would be useful in some circumstances, but given that just > >> saying "recheck" will suffice, I'd prefer that we kept the general > >> recommendation simple so developers can worry about something else. > > > > Fair enough. I feel like you and I should sit down and chat about this > > stuff at the LCA meetup next week. If we need to make tweaks based on > > that, then we will. > > Further to this, I have just reloaded our zuul with a rules change. > The following events will all cause a turbo hipster check run: > > - uploading a patchset > - restoring a patchset > - commenting "recheck .*" > - commenting "recheck migrations"
With the growing interest in 3rd party testing systems would using 'recheck turbo-hipster' make more sense here? I'm fine with 'recheck migrations' in addition for turbo-hipster but it would make sense to align the recheck naming scheme with the title of the reviewer for the 3rd party testing system. > > Cheers, > Michael > > -- > Rackspace Australia > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev