Jeremy Stanley <[email protected]> writes: > On 2017-05-30 12:53:15 -0700 (-0700), Jesse Keating wrote: > [...] >> Github labels: This is like approvals/reviews. > [...] > > Perhaps an interesting aside, Gerrit uses the same term (labels) for > how we're doing approvals and review voting.
Yeah, or at least, related. I think in Gerrit a "label" is a review category (eg, "Verified", "Code Review") and an "approval" is a value given by a user to a change in one of those categories (eg, "Verified: +1", or "Code Review -2" would be an interestingly named "approval"). Of course, that's new[1]; they used to be called "categories" rather than "labels". >> Personally, my opinions are that to avoid confusion, change type >> requirements should always fail on push type events. This means >> open, current-patchset, approvals, reviews, labels, and maybe >> status requirements would all fail to match a pipeline for a push >> type event. It's the least ambiguous, and promotes the practice of >> creating a separate pipeline for push like events from change like >> events. I welcome other opinions! > > This seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. Agreed -- we haven't run into this condition because our pipelines are naturally segregated into change or ref related workflows. I think that's probably going to be the case for most folks, so codifying this seems reasonable. However, I could simply be failing to imagine a pipeline that works with both. -Jim [1] As of six years ago. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
