On 29/08/2015 07:46, Abhishek Varshney wrote:> Hi Loic, > > How about marking the PRs which pass integration/upgrade tests with a prefix > PT (Passed Tests) or something in the title after they are merged into the > stable branch. This is probably how we can do it: > > 1. While preparing an integration branch, also get all the PRs which are > merged but do not have PT as prefix. These are essentially the PRs which have > bypassed tests.
Nathan had a similar idea and asked that the "Integration Passed" status is added to the Backport tracker (see http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11824). We should start using it. > 2. Perform integration/update tests on all the other open PRs in the > integration branch. > 3. If the integration branch passes all the tests, mark all the PRs as PT, > including the ones which had bypassed tests earlier. Now, we know that the > PRs which had bypassed tests are bug free. That makes senses. We should amend http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO_populate_the_integration_branch to also select merged commits that have not seen tests. Note that the hammer branch also is tested, automatically (the test plan is documented at http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO_monitor_the_automated_tests_AKA_nightlies). So, once a PR is merged, it will eventually be tested in this way. > 4. If the integration branch encounters failures, we know it could be > because of the PRs which had bypassed tests and we know what those PRs are > from step 1. This is going in the right direction :-) That's a lot of manual updating though and it would be great of teuthology could update the issues / PRs with test results so we don't have to manually maintain that inventory. Cheers > > Thanks for the clarification on this scenario. > > Regards > Abhishek > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Josh Durgin <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 08/28/2015 12:16 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > > Hi Abhishek, > > We've just had an example of a backport merged into hammer although > it did not follow the procedure : https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5691 > > It's a key aspect of backports : we're bound to follow procedure, but > developers are allowed to bypass it entirely. It may seem like something > leading to chaos and frustration but it turns out to be exactly the opposite. > In a nutshell, it would be constant source of frustration for developers to > learn and obey the rules documented at > http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO because it would > not benefit them significantly. It would also be a problem for us, > backporters, because developers would not be as interested in backporting and > our workload would significantly increase. > > When a developer prepares a backport on his / her own, we update the > pull request and the issues to obey the procedure so the (s)he does not have > to. Sure, it's a little tedious but it's a small price to pay for the benefit > of having a backport being dealt with. That's what I did for > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5691 : updaging the corresponding issues, > adding cross references to the pull request. > > Samuel Just felt confident enough about the backport that it did not > need a rados run to verify it does the right thing. Since it's ultimately > Sam's responsibility, that's also ok. The only thing we need to keep in mind > when analyzing the next rados run is that this backport did not pass yet. We > don't have a way to mark commits that bypassed tests just yet, if you have > ideas let us know :-) > > > That was me merging it based on my local testing. I'll keep an eye out > for any fallout in the hammer runs. > > Thanks for keeping everything updated Loic! > Josh > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If > you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This > message contains confidential information and is intended only for the > individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not > disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete > this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are > notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in > reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Although > Flipkart has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in > this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage > arising from the use of this email or attachments > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
