I would prefer option 2. --
Mike Dusenberry GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry Sent from my iPhone. > On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Glenn Weidner <gweid...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > My preference is option 3. > > Thanks, > Glenn > > > Arvind Surve ---04/28/2017 11:09:48 AM---Agree, these messages are > distractions. Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark. > > From: Arvind Surve <ac...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > To: "dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org" <dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org> > Date: 04/28/2017 11:09 AM > Subject: Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests > > > > > Agree, these messages are distractions. > Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/ > > From: Matthias Boehm <mboe...@googlemail.com> > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:05 AM > Subject: Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests > > as I commented on one of these github comments, I'm strongly against > these kind of unnecessary messages because they distract from the actual > discussions. I already had to change my notification settings > accordingly - essentially I'm not watching SystemML's PR activity any > more. > > Regards, > Matthias > > On 4/28/2017 10:42 AM, Deron Eriksson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > When a pull request is created or another commit is pushed to that pull > > request, a build including running our test suite is performed (Jenkins at > > https://sparktc.ibmcloud.com/jenkins/job/SystemML-PullRequestBuilder/). > > This is the same model that other projects such as Apache Spark use > > (Jenkins at > > https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/). > > > > A few days ago, automated build passed/failed pull request messages were > > introduced to our pull requests, following the same type of Spark model. > > A) SystemML example: https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/442 > > B) Spark example: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17765 > > > > Personally I like these messages because for contributors that do pull > > requests, it automatically tells them the status of the build for their > > pull requests and gives them a direct link to the build/test results. An > > opposing viewpoint would be that these messages are somewhat like spam. > > > > So we should make a public decision on the mailing list what to do about > > these automated build status messages. > > > > Some options: > > (1) keep the automated messages exactly as they are > > (2) keep the automated messages, but consolidate the two messages into one > > (such as "Build successful" and "Refer to this link..."). > > (3) get rid of the automated messages > > > > I like (2). Any other opinions or options? > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Deron > > > > > > > > >
