+1nb with the amendment
On 2022/01/12 21:03:08 Andrés de la Peña wrote: > Still +1 with the amendment > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 19:57, C. Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote: > > > +1nb, with and without the amendment. > > > > Reason for mentioning without: I see the ability to cut a release to > > address an urgent security or data loss issue as one of the strongest > > arguments for maintaining green CI as a resting state so we are ready in > > the event of an emergency. > > > > Test results that we can trust help us ship urgent fixes safely. If I were > > a user and had an urgent need to ramp a new build (e.g., if Apache > > Cassandra were affected by log4j), I would be very concerned about a > > fleet-wide deploy of a distributed database release with failing tests. > > > > But in both cases, +1nb. :) > > > > – Scott > > > > On Jan 12, 2022, at 11:22 AM, David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > On Jan 12, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Joseph Lynch <joe.e.ly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:25 AM Berenguer Blasi > > <berenguerbl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > jenkins CI was at 2/3 flakies consistently post 4.0 release. > > > > > > That is really impressive and I absolutely don't mean to downplay that > > achievement. > > > > Then things broke and we've been working hard to get back to the 2/3 > > flakies. Most > > current failures imo are timeuuid C17133 or early termination of process > > C17140 related afaik. So getting back to the 2/3 'impossible' flakies > > should be doable and a reasonable target (famous last words...). My 2cts. > > > > > > I really appreciate all the work folks have been doing to get the > > project to green, and I support the parts of the proposal that try to > > formalize methods to try to keep us there. I am only objecting to #2 > > in the proposal where we have a non-negotiable gate on tests before a > > release. > > > > -Joey > > > > > > >
