On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:28 PM Pranith Kumar Karampuri <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:04 PM Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Purpose of my responses has been to prevent a lock down because I believe > the existing process of locking down the complete branch doesn't change > behaviors of developers to prevent a lock down. The process seems to > reinforce it. Hence I raised it on this thread, because it is contributing > to it. It doesn't look like the discussion went to a logical end. I still > don't know what are the new actions we are taking to prevent lock down from > happening. What are they? > So far the responses from Atin/Nigel/Shyam have been helpful in shaping my understanding of the problem and I documented an automated way to solve this problem at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1635826 > > >> >> > >> > -- >> > Pranith >> > > > -- > Pranith > -- Pranith
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
