Re: [vdsm] PEP8 in VDSM code
The reason I wanted a gerrit hook is to avoid putting a -1 until VDSM is clean of errors. It's supposed to be a transitional state. - Original Message - > From: "Itamar Heim" > To: "Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden" > Cc: vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 5:52:13 AM > Subject: Re: [vdsm] PEP8 in VDSM code > > On 03/26/2012 11:26 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:57:24AM -0400, Ayal Baron wrote: > >>> I'd rather avoid gerrit hooks if possible to use a jenkins job to > >>> validate this to keep the gerrit deployment as simple to > >>> maintain/upgrade as possible. > >> > >> But that's the wrong place to be doing it. > >> Jenkins periodically polls for changes and then runs a job and > >> posts > >> the results somewhere (who would get the email?) > >> > >> Here the committer would immediately know that there is a problem > >> with > >> the patch and reviewers also immediately know not to accept it. > > I think what Itamar is getting at is that from gerrit you can > > trigger > > jenkins jobs which give a -1 if it fails. If jenkins checks for > > pep8 > > you've solved the feedback issue without creating custom a gerrit > > hook. > > It will also be more scalable since you can add pyflakes / pylint / > > ... > > in the same check. > > true. > per ayal's question - patch owner and reviewers will get the email, > like > any other review. > we need to keep the gerrit as simple as possible wrt maintenance. > ___ > vdsm-devel mailing list > vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel > ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] PEP8 in VDSM code
On 03/26/2012 11:26 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:57:24AM -0400, Ayal Baron wrote: I'd rather avoid gerrit hooks if possible to use a jenkins job to validate this to keep the gerrit deployment as simple to maintain/upgrade as possible. But that's the wrong place to be doing it. Jenkins periodically polls for changes and then runs a job and posts the results somewhere (who would get the email?) Here the committer would immediately know that there is a problem with the patch and reviewers also immediately know not to accept it. I think what Itamar is getting at is that from gerrit you can trigger jenkins jobs which give a -1 if it fails. If jenkins checks for pep8 you've solved the feedback issue without creating custom a gerrit hook. It will also be more scalable since you can add pyflakes / pylint / ... in the same check. true. per ayal's question - patch owner and reviewers will get the email, like any other review. we need to keep the gerrit as simple as possible wrt maintenance. ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] PEP8 in VDSM code
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:57:24AM -0400, Ayal Baron wrote: > > I'd rather avoid gerrit hooks if possible to use a jenkins job to > > validate this to keep the gerrit deployment as simple to > > maintain/upgrade as possible. > > But that's the wrong place to be doing it. > Jenkins periodically polls for changes and then runs a job and posts > the results somewhere (who would get the email?) > > Here the committer would immediately know that there is a problem with > the patch and reviewers also immediately know not to accept it. I think what Itamar is getting at is that from gerrit you can trigger jenkins jobs which give a -1 if it fails. If jenkins checks for pep8 you've solved the feedback issue without creating custom a gerrit hook. It will also be more scalable since you can add pyflakes / pylint / ... in the same check. ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] PEP8 in VDSM code
- Original Message - > On 03/22/2012 10:18 PM, Saggi Mizrahi wrote: > > I suggest having pep8 a must for patch submission in VDSM. > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/ > > > > Currently there are a few people policing these rules in reviews > > but I suggest we make it automatic. > > > > Unless someone objects I will put a gerrit hook that complains > > about pep8 violations. > > It will not mark -1s until all (or at least most) source code has > > been converted because people might get complains about code they > > did not modify in this patch. > > > > If you happy and you know it +1! > > I'd rather avoid gerrit hooks if possible to use a jenkins job to > validate this to keep the gerrit deployment as simple to > maintain/upgrade as possible. But that's the wrong place to be doing it. Jenkins periodically polls for changes and then runs a job and posts the results somewhere (who would get the email?) Here the committer would immediately know that there is a problem with the patch and reviewers also immediately know not to accept it. > ___ > vdsm-devel mailing list > vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel > ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
