Correct, it's 1 and 2. To be clear, I'm not proposing to cherry-pick those reviews without having done any testing. The commit message shows the testing involved.
Are we interested in adding "tests-for-tests" into our regular runs? On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > If these don't get exercised by the pre-merge test, why not run them > through there anyway? > > I can think of a couple of reasons, but I'm wondering if there's > something else other than (1) resource use (2) flaky tests cause > spurious failures sometimes? > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Michael Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > These two reviews have been approved, but the changes wouldn't be > exercised > > by running GVO. Could a committer please cherry-pick them? > > > > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/5387/ > > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/5486/ > > > > The second is based on the first (the second's parent commit is the first > > patch set). I believe when the first is cherry-picked, the second will no > > longer say "cannot merge". If something looks suspicious with the second > > after the first is cherry-picked, let me know and I'll rebase it to clean > > it up. > > > > Thank you. >
