On 13-11-21 06:42 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote: > I am a bit leery of this. A test failure should not occur and I'm not > sure everyone will be diligent in tracking their errors. IMO, tests > that are randomly failing elsewhere should be disabled and fixed by > whoever owns them (i.e. if some non-related test keeps failing, push a patch > to > disable it and send a note to the list for someone to fix it). > > A verification build can be retriggered after failure if it just hiccups > unexpectedly (e.g. Eclipse.org issue). If one follows the build started > message URL and logs in, the build can be retriggered. A success will > then remove the veto. > > Looking at the linuxtools-gerrit job, it appears that Alex, myself, Roland, > Sami, and Patrick have the ability to build. We could add yourself and others > to the build list. Worst case scenario is you can ask one of us who has > access to > retrigger the build if you feel it is randomly failing.
Ah ok, I didn't know others had access to those settings. If we can re-launch the Hudson build manually, then it it a big improvement over having to re-push the patch manually (and having to do trivial changes to it for Gerrit to take it, etc.). Thanks, Alexandre > > -- Jeff J. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmon...@voxpopuli.im> > To: "Linux Tools developer discussions" <linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:01:45 PM > Subject: [linuxtools-dev] Hudson CI NAK'ing patches > > Hi all, > > What would you think of making the Hudson-Gerrit plugin (a.k.a. Hudson > CI) giving "-1 Code Review" on Gerrit, instead of the current "-1 > Verified"? The difference is that a committer can override a -1 CR when > giving it a +2, which allows pushing the patch anyway. When "-1 > Verified" is given however, the patch is effectively veto'ed and cannot > be merged at all through Gerrit, unless you rebase it manually, or if > you push it directly through Git. > > We do appreciate Hudson CI running the compilation/tests and reporting > the results. It's very helpful! However there are cases where the > failures are unrelated to the code being reviewed (unit test failures in > other projects, random brokage at Eclipse, etc.) and, imo, the human > should be able to ignore what Hudson says. Without having to resort to > dirty tricks like push-it-before-Hudson-runs or pushing through Git. > > I'm not sure how to change this, but CDT has their Gerrit set up this > way, if I'm not mistaken. > > What do you think? > > > Cheers, > Alexandre > _______________________________________________ > linuxtools-dev mailing list > linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev > _______________________________________________ > linuxtools-dev mailing list > linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev _______________________________________________ linuxtools-dev mailing list linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
