On November 28, 2017 7:37 pm, James E. Blair wrote:
Jens Harbott <j.harb...@x-ion.de> writes:2017-11-23 5:28 GMT+00:00 Tristan Cacqueray <tdeca...@redhat.com>: ...TL;DR; Is it alright if we re-enable this CI and report those tests on zuul-jobs patchsets?I like the general idea, but please wait for more feedback until doing so.I am in favor of the idea in general, thanks!Also, IMHO it would be better if you could change the "recheck-sf" trigger to something that does not also rerun upstream checks. What seems to work well for other projects is "run ci-name", where ci-name is the name of the Gerrit account.Actually, I'd prefer that we do the opposite. I'd like the recheck command for both to just be "recheck". There's no harm in both systems re-running tests for a change in this case, and it keeps things simpler for developers. The requirements in https://docs.openstack.org/infra/system-config/third_party.html#requirements state that all systems should honor "recheck". I'd like to go beyond that in zuul-jobs and say that third-party ci systems on that repo should *only* honor "recheck". In the meeting today we agreed that we should start by reporting without voting, gain some confidence, then enable +1/-1 voting.
Now that zuul-jobs correctly run on CentOS I enabled the patchset-created and recheck comment event filters. Thanks, -Tristan
pgpPkDMwjdMyb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
