On 10/03/2018 11:32 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:50 PM Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 10/03/2018 11:16 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > > Once we have distributed tests running, such that overall > regression > > time is reduced, we can possibly tackle removing retries for > tests, and > > then getting to a more stringent recheck process/tooling. The > reason > > being, we now run to completion and that takes quite a bit of > time, so > > at this juncture removing retry is not practical, but we > should get > > there (soon?). > > > > > > I agree with you about removing retry. I didn't understand why recheck > > nudging developers has to be post-poned till distributed regression > > tests comes into picture. My thinking is that it is more important to > > have it when tests take longer. > > Above is only retry specific, not recheck specific, as in "we can > possibly tackle removing retries for tests" > > But also reiterating this is orthogonal to the lock down needs discussed > here. > > > As per my understanding the reason why lock down is happening because no > one makes any noise about the failures that they are facing as and when > it happens, and it doesn't get conveyed on gluster-devel. So is there > any reason why you think it is orthogonal considering it is contributing > directly to the problem that we are discussing on this thread?
Taking steps to ensure quality is maintained is going to reduce instances of lock down, hence orthogonal. > > -- > Pranith _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
