Well it is only partially off topic, because it is impossible to merge
a db script close to release. A file rename means new CI job and that
can take ages (especially for the engine and the multiple branches we
have). The same what Martin is describing for the engine with FF only
setup.
Gating
On 21 November 2016 at 13:51, Martin Sivak wrote:
> Will it also auto-rename the database scripts? Please please!
>
Well, automated systems are not supposed to make code changes without
humans being aware (see other thread about "ff-only" where "rebase if
necessary" is a
Off topic I think.., but wasn't there a Gerrit plugin Roy wrote for it?
On Nov 21, 2016 13:51, "Martin Sivak" wrote:
> Will it also auto-rename the database scripts? Please please!
>
> Martin
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Eyal Edri wrote:
> > This
Will it also auto-rename the database scripts? Please please!
Martin
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Eyal Edri wrote:
> This isn't gating.
> Just trigger to run more heavy lifting CI jobs, the idea is to replace the
> manual submit with automatic system like Zuul.
>
>
> On
This isn't gating.
Just trigger to run more heavy lifting CI jobs, the idea is to replace the
manual submit with automatic system like Zuul.
On Nov 21, 2016 1:32 PM, "Tal Nisan" wrote:
> Why not use +1 on verified? That way the patch owner can wait till the
> code review
Why not use +1 on verified? That way the patch owner can wait till the code
review process is over, mark it as verified, wait for CI and then submit.
It doesn't really give much added value to the code reviewers whether it's
marked as verified or not
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Sandro
Il 20/Nov/2016 17:25, "Nir Soffer" ha scritto:
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Yedidyah Bar David
wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Barak Korren
wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Perhaps the main purpose of CI, is to prevent
Il 20/Nov/2016 16:06, "Barak Korren" ha scritto:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Perhaps the main purpose of CI, is to prevent braking code from
> getting merged into the stable/master branches. Unfortunately our CI
> is not there yet, and one of the reasons for that is that we do large
>
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Yedidyah Bar David wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Barak Korren wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Perhaps the main purpose of CI, is to prevent braking code from
>> getting merged into the stable/master branches. Unfortunately
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Barak Korren wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Perhaps the main purpose of CI, is to prevent braking code from
> getting merged into the stable/master branches. Unfortunately our CI
> is not there yet, and one of the reasons for that is that we do large
>
Hi all,
Perhaps the main purpose of CI, is to prevent braking code from
getting merged into the stable/master branches. Unfortunately our CI
is not there yet, and one of the reasons for that is that we do large
amount of our CI tests only _after_ the code is merged.
The reason for that is that
11 matches
Mail list logo