Not currently. It just doesn't work in the current CI system. But we're currently working on a new and much improved CI system (more info soon in a separate mail), that should at least improve the long integration times.
Cheers, Lars On 19/03/15 04:10, "Konstantin Ritt" <ritt...@gmail.com<mailto:ritt...@gmail.com>> wrote: [Not really in-topic but still...] Can we also introduce a flag with meaning like "this change doesn't require clean build"? For example, when the approver gives his +2 to a simple change in the .h file, he can also turn that flag on -- iff all staged changes has this flag on, then CI does incremental build and runs auto-tests as usual. Konstantin 2015-03-09 11:30 GMT+04:00 Knoll Lars <lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com<mailto:lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com>>: On 07/03/15 04:03, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com<mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote: >On Friday 06 March 2015 17:42:00 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> 1) i'd like to propose the introduction of the code review score -3. > >> -1: "I would prefer this is not merged as is", advisory, non-sticky >> -2: "This shall not be merged as is", blocking, non-sticky >> -3: "This shall not be merged [at all]", blocking, sticky > >Agreed, this makes sense. The -1 means "if someone approves, ignore me", >whereas -2 means "this needs to change, can't be merged". > >The -3 is just to indicate an approach that can never work, such as a >feature >we cannot accept or a patch submitted to the wrong branch. -2 are already >rather rare, so I expect -3 to be used only once in a blue moon. Agree, it would be nice to have a non sticky -2, so the sticky -3 makes sense. > >> 2) i'd like to propose the introduction of the code review score +3. >> >> let's start with the scores: >> >> +3: "Looks good to me, approved", enabling >> +2: "Looks good to me, but someone else must approve", advisory >> +1: "Someone else must review this", advisory >> >> possible uses: >> - non-approvers (specifically, not-yet-approvers) would have two levels >> to express their opinion > >You mean four levels, since they also get -1 and 0. > >> - the new +1 gives the possibility to explicitly give a neutral score >> (substitute for +0, which gerrit does not permit) >> - *maybe* some approvers would feel less inclined to approve changes >> they don't fully understand (yes, this is actually a problem), simply >> because of the psychological effect of the possibility to express the >> opinion with more "numerical nuance". >> >> i don't feel very strongly about this one, but i think it would add >> value. > >I don't like this one. > >If you don't want to express an opinion, leave your score at 0. I don't >see >the need to have a value saying "I've reviewed but have no opinion". I >also >don't see why approvers are giving +2 if they don't fully understand it. >Not >only should they be using the right value for that, this change wouldn't >help >in any way since they could just turn around and give +3 to changes they >don't >fully understand. > >As a drawback, it would make Qt's Gerrit behave very differently from >everyone >else, where a +2 does mean approval. > >In my opinion, this change has no pros and has cons. While I see the reasoning behind, I think this overcomplicates things. A non-sticky -2 that balances a +2 should be enough to solve most of the issues, and the proposed +1 sounds very much like the current +0 to me, so we can IMO just as well leave it out. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org<mailto:Development@qt-project.org> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development