I've tried my job a few times and it's working as expected. Any objections to me switching over gerrit-verify-dryrun to my approach?
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Ok, I was able to put together a test job that does the automatic rebase > and carries a +2 here: https://jenkins.impala.io/job/gerrit-verify-dryrun- > tarmstrong/ > > The diff in job config required to get it to work is here: > https://jenkins.impala.io/job/gerrit-verify-dryrun- > tarmstrong/jobConfigHistory/showDiffFiles?timestamp1=2018- > 06-07_20-41-18×tamp2=2018-06-07_21-38-58 > > I tested by creating some private drafts, adding "Impala Public Jenkins" > as a reviewer and testing the various scenarios. > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> I agree with both of you. >> >> On nit: as GVD gets more complex, it becomes harder for new people to >> understand the messages and +Ns applied to their patches. That doesn't >> mean >> we shouldn't do this, only that it's something to keep an eye on. >> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Philip Zeyliger <phi...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Seems fine, especially since we do the rebase as our submission strategy >> > anyway, so we're already accepting/testing something that's likely to >> get >> > rebased, and we may as well minimize that window. >> > >> > I'd be in favor of the bot also carrying the votes. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > One annoyance with our precommit job is the requirement to manually >> > rebase >> > > the change before starting the merge. Failure to do so either leads to >> > > false positives or false negatives - builds that failed because they >> were >> > > missing a flaky/broken test fix and builds that succeeded despite >> > > interacting badly with a previous fix. >> > > >> > > What do people think about modifying gerrit-verify-dryrun to >> > automatically >> > > rebase the patch (by the programmatic equivalent of hitting the >> "Rebase" >> > > button) at the start of the job? The patch author would still have to >> > carry >> > > the +2 but this might make our lives a bit easier. >> > > >> > > - Tim >> > > >> > >> > >
