On 4 April 2016 at 09:22, Ihar Hrachyshka <[email protected]> wrote:
> Armando M. <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> On 4 April 2016 at 09:01, Ihar Hrachyshka <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I noticed that often times we go and -2 all the patches in the review >> queue on every neutron specific gate breakage spotted. This is allegedly >> done to make sure that nothing known to be broken land in merge gate until >> we fix the breakage on our side. >> >> This is not allegedly done. When I do it, I put a comment next to my >> action. >> >> >> >> While I share the goal of not resetting the gate if we can avoid it, I >> find the way we do it a bit too aggressive. Especially considering that >> often times those -2 votes sit there not cleared even days after the >> causing breakage is fixed, needlessly blocking patches landing. >> >> That's a blatant lie: I am aggressive at putting -2s as well as removing >> them. Other changes for those the -2 stick is probably because they aren't >> worth the hassle. We've been also in feature freeze so slowing things down >> should have hurt anyway. >> >> >> I suggest we either make sure that we remove those -2 votes right after >> gate fixes land, or we use other means to communicate to core reviewers >> that there is a time window when nothing should land in the merge queue. >> >> Initially I tried sending emails ahead of time alerting for gate >> breakages, but that doesn't work for obvious reasons: there is a lag that >> can still be fatal. >> >> On the specific circumstance, gate broke on Friday late afternoon PDT. It >> didn't seem that was anything critical worth merging at all cost that >> couldn't wait until Monday morning and I didn't bother check that things >> merged safely in the middle of my weekend. >> > > Yeah, but it’s already up to two working days in some places. > I hear ya, but I only blocked 6 patches with one +2, none of which were critical, so I really didn't see much of a disruption; that said, I appreciate your note, and I'll be even more cautious next time. > > Note that I don’t mean you should check anything on your weekend. Instead, > I think we should avoid -2’s in this case and teach core reviewers to check > some source of gate state truth. An email would actually work as long as > everyone actively checks it [if for some reason people are not reading > openstack-dev@, let’s To: everyone in the group]. Perhaps we could try using -1, rather than -2, hoping it gets the same level of attention. Having tried the entire past cycle with emails I don't see how they could work at all. > > Ihar > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
