On 2014-08-12 17:43:37 +1000 (+1000), Joshua Hesketh wrote: > Right, and even if we did change all the 3rd parties over to > something that doesn't start with 'recheck' there will be > inconsistencies between 3rd parties and 1st party. [...]
If this is really something the various CI operators want to support (rather than merely something which has been cargo-culted as a behavior they're expected to emulate), I think we need a separate syntax for it which lacks the encumbrance of the currently ambiguous "recheck" ad-hoc language which has grown arbitrarily by convention. However, I also don't personally think that rechecking one specific CI makes sense, and would rather just have them all run every time you say "recheck" since otherwise you end up pin-and-tumbler lockpicking racy bugs (selectively rerererecheck each CI until you get a good run and then hold that result while you work through the rest of them in turn). I'm less worried about the small amount of resource waste in the upstream OpenStack project infrastructure from people getting jobs rerun when they recheck for some failed third-party result. The expectation we ultimately need to set is that every CI should pass pretty much all of the time on a good change and if it doesn't then it must be fixed (upstream CI included). Allowing you to selectively rerun jobs from one system reinforces the idea that it's okay to fail frequently as long as devs are eventually able to coax out a passing run. -- Jeremy Stanley _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
