I am OK with variant of (2): The message giving the link when the PR is created and/or if there are build failures. If this is not possible, then I vote for option 3.
Thanks, Niketan Pansare IBM Almaden Research Center E-mail: npansar At us.ibm.com http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-npansar From: Deron Eriksson <deroneriks...@gmail.com> To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org Date: 05/01/2017 02:40 PM Subject: Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests Would anyone else in our SystemML community care to comment? So far we have a tie: 3 for option 2 - Dusenberry, Jindall, and Eriksson 3 for option 3 - Boehm, Surve, and Weidner Deron On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:53 PM, <dusenberr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Deron Eriksson Spark Technology Center http://www.spark.tc/
