> -----Original Message----- > From: Derek Higgins [mailto:der...@redhat.com] > Sent: 17 September 2014 14:49 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Set WIP for stale patches? > > On 17/09/14 14:40, Charles Crouch wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Hi, > >> > >> as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at > >> last week's meeting  that we should set workflow -1 for stale > >> reviews (like gerrit used to do when I were a lad). > >> > >> The specific criteria discussed was 'items that have a -1 from a core > >> but no response from author for 14 days'. This topic came up again > >> during today's meeting and it wasn't clear if the intention was for > >> cores to start enforcing this? So: > >> > >> Do we start setting WIP/workflow -1 for those reviews that have a -1 > >> from a core but no response from author for 14 days > >> > >> thanks, marios > >> > >>  > >> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2014/tripleo.2014-09- > >> 09-19.04.log.html > > > > So it looks like this has already started.. > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105275/ > > > > I think we need to document on the wiki *precisely* the criteria for > > setting WIP/workflow -1. > Yup, we definitely should > > > For example that review above has a Jenkins failure but no core > > reviews at all. > FWIW I reckon a jenkins -1 should also start the 2 week clock but in the > case you've linked the -1 was only 2 days ago so should have remained > untouched.
I think this highlights exactly why this should be an automated process. No errors in application, and no errors in interpretation of what has happened. So the -1 from Jenkins was a reaction to the comment created by adding the workflow -1. This is going to happen on all of the patches that have their workflow value altered (tests will run, result would be whatever the result of the test was, of course). But I also agree that the Jenkins vote should not be included in the determination of marking a patch WIP, but a human review should (So Code-Review and not Verified column). And in fact, for the specific example to hand, the last Jenkins vote was actually a +1, so as I understand it should not have been marked WIP. > > > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStackemail@example.com > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackemail@example.com > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Thanks, Jon-Paul Sullivan ☺ Cloud Services - @hpcloud Postal Address: Hewlett-Packard Galway Limited, Ballybrit Business Park, Galway. Registered Office: Hewlett-Packard Galway Limited, 63-74 Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2. Registered Number: 361933 The contents of this message and any attachments to it are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message in error you should delete it from your system immediately and advise the sender. To any recipient of this message within HP, unless otherwise stated, you should consider this message and attachments as "HP CONFIDENTIAL". _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev