On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:31:05PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2014-07-18 15:09:34 +0100 (+0100), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > [...] > > If there were multiple failures and only some were identified, it would > > be reasonable to *not* automatically recheck. > [...] > > Another major blocker is that we often add signatures for failures > which occur 100% of the time, and while those tend to get fixed a > bit faster than 1% failures, automatic rechecks would mean that for > some period while we're investigating the gate would just be > spinning over and over running jobs which had no chance of passing. > > I suppose it could be argued that elastic-recheck needs a > categorization mechanism so that it also won't recommend rechecking > for those sorts of scenarios (all discussion of automated rechecks > aside).
Yep, if there's a bug which is known to hit 90%+ of the time due to some known problem, launchpad could be tagged with "NoRecheck" and e-r taught to avoid re-queuing such failures. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev