On 19/06/2014, at 1:23 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > hi, > I was told that Justin and I were given permission to mark a patch as > verified+1 when the tests that failed are spurious failures. I think this > process can be automated as well. I already have a script to parse the > Console log to identify the tests that failed (I send mails using this, yet > to automate the mailing part). What we need to do now is the following: > 1) Find the list of tests that are modified/added as part of the commit. > 2) Parse the list of tests that failed the full regression (I already have > this script). > > Run 'prove' on these files separately say 5/10 times. If a particular test > fails all the time. It is a real failure with more probability. Otherwise it > is a spurious failure. > If a file that is added as a new test fails even a single time, lets accept > the patch after fixing the failures. > Otherwise we can give +1 on it, instead of Justin/I manually doing it.
Sounds good to me. :) + Justin > Also send a mail to gluster-devel about the failures for each test. We'll might want to make that weekly or something? There are several failures every day. :/ + Justin -- GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org An open source, distributed file system scaling to several petabytes, and handling thousands of clients. My personal twitter: twitter.com/realjustinclift _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
