On 04/04/2016 23:20, Carl Baldwin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Doug Wiegley > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don’t know, -1 really means, “there is something wrong, the submitter >> should fix it and clear the slate.” Whereas -2 has two meanings. The first >> is “procedural block”, and the second is “f*** you.” >> >> I really don’t see a reason not to use the procedural block as a procedural >> block. Are you not trusting the other cores to remove them or something? >> It’s literally what it’s there for. > > I'm not complaining. I've had plenty of these -2s and I understanding > the reason behind it. But, I thought I'd chime in. > > I interpret a -2 on a patch as a procedural block because of something > related to the patch. It is awkward as a procedural block when it is > being applied due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the > patch itself and the only person who can remove the block is the > person who applied it in the first place. That person might get > distracted, leave for the week-end, go on vacation, etc. > > Would it be nice if the project itself had an easy procedural block? > A single switch that turns off entering the gate queue for the entire > project? Wouldn't it also be nice if the switch could be toggled by > any one of a group responsible for it? I think it would be nice but > I'm not sure how it could be easily implemented. > > Carl
See my response earlier. if it is too "over engineered" there is variations that could work (e.g. a script with shared creds / some sort of side repo that triggers a jenkins job to run it) - I just suggested a bot as it seemed easier. On a side note, I have always thought that our overloaded use of -2 to procedurally block things was a bit weird. A new label seems like a much better idea. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
