Excerpts from Joshua Hesketh's message of 2017-06-02 13:45:00 +1000: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Paul Belanger <pabelan...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 04:04:20PM -0700, James E. Blair wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > As part of Zuul v3, we're adding support for GitHub (and later possibly > > > other systems). We want these systems to have access to the full power > > > of cross-project-dependencies in the same way as Gerrit. However, the > > > current syntax for the Depends-On footer is currently the > > > Gerrit-specific change-id. > > > > > > We chose this in an attempt to be future-compatible with some proposed > > > changes to Gerrit itself to support cross-project dependencies. Since > > > then, Gerrit has gone in a different direction on this subject, so I no > > > longer think we should weigh that very heavily. > > > > > > While Gerrit change ids can be used to identify one or more changes > > > within a Gerrit installation, there is no comparable identifier on > > > GitHub, as pull request numbers are unique only within a project. > > > > > > The natural way to identify a GitHub pull request is with its URL. > > > > > > This can be used to identify Gerrit changes as well, and will likely be > > > well supported by other systems. Therefore, I propose we support URLs > > > as the content of the Depends-On footers for all systems. E.g.: > > > > > > Depends-On: https://review.openstack.org/12345 > > > Depends-On: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/12345 > > > > > Hopefully not to off-topic, would it also be possible to support the > > reverse of > > this? I know we've unofficially used the Needed-By footer for some > > governance > > patches. It has been helpful when looking at git logs to see the other > > direction > > dependency from time to time. > > > > Not a big deal if it is a no, just something that popped into my head when > > reading this topic. > > > > > So at the moment if we're trying to figure out why something hasn't entered > the gate we can see "oh it depends-on this other things". However if we do > a need-by that becomes a lot less obvious. If we're logging how the > changes/deps are queued/merged (as discussed in this thread) then I don't > see why not. As it is though I'd probably recommend against it. >
I've always wondered about the asymmetrical power of Needed-By. Seems like projects should have to opt-in to letting another project block their patches. However, it would make sense to use it as an annotation for automatic rechecks. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
