On 03/23/2015 03:59 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (23/03/15 14:47), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 03/23/2015 02:43 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (23/03/15 14:18), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:07:12PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
simple patch is attached.
LS
Hm, the default CI test doesn't run distcheck?
I admit I haven't ran distcheck myself, but was relying on the CI link
Pavel sent..
That's the reason why I do not send link to CI result as an author of the
patch.
In my opinion it's reviewer's task.
LS
What would be different if Jakub ran CI himself?
If I had reviewd your patch i would have sent links to CI result which
run all test (including distcheck and mock build)
I tend to agree with Pavel here: trusting developer's CI links might save us
some time. It doesn't replace the patch-specific testing, where necessary, of
course.
I usually attach link to CI because I run it myself - to make sure that my
patch is as tested as possible. I think it can save some unnecessary
turnarounds.
The main reason is that reviewer should not rely on CI link.
How can developer verify that CI link is for the same patches?
We can trust the matching commit hashes to some extent.
Still, the actual commit set and order pushed to the public repo might differ
from what the developer tested, so the gatekeeper would preferably need to run
the tests on the commits-to-push.
As usual, it's choosing what's good enough for us.
Nick
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
