On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:58:01PM +0000, Derek Higgins wrote: <snip>
> > > >Ah, I think all we have here is a terminology mismatch around "non voting" > >vs "non gating". > > > >AFAIK what is being proposed is to reinstate the TripleO jobs so they *do* > >vote on any change (+1/-1), but they do not block the gate, so we won't get > >in the way if occasional outages happen. > > Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to do, nothing would be changing from how > it used to be, the tripleo jobs would vote with a -1/+1 but approvers could > still approve if they wanted to (i.e. not in the gate). The only thing I am > asking we do differently to the way it used to be is an agreement to not > blindly ignore the results of the tripleo job as ignoring the results is > what causes a lot of the breakages in the first place. +1, this is what I was imagining when we first talked about this. Let's go ahead and add this to ironic, I'll be sure to make an announcement in Monday's meeting. // jim __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
