> Option 1: Nothing merges without passing PR runner tests, ever, even if
the issue is rooted in the configuration or infrastructure of the test
runners or an expired certificate etc. This would light a fire to get
these issues resolved ASAP because nothing can happen without them.
I like this option for the same reasons Daniel mentioned; it also implies
an up-to-date infrastructure and better reliability: both false negative
and false positive (test/build) failures will still happen in all the three
options regardless, but at least false negatives won't be ignored.
This might also help catching environment issues sooner in the process
(such as a third-party library update causing a legitimate failure because
of e.g backwards incompatibility).
When it comes to plugin independence, we could state that only plugins
conforming with these (core) PR criteria can be "adopted" and tagged as
Pulp-approved/compatible and kept under the Pulp project.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Jeremy, I don't think David was continuing our line of discussion on
> policy, but rather rebutting the original idea that Github's "required
> checks" be enforced for all plugins. That goes back to the whole
> difference between having a policy that requires green tests and making it
> physically impossible to merge PRs without them. Maybe some plugins want a
> policy and some plugins are fine with hard required checks on Github, but
> the latter shouldn't be enforced on everyone - is what I think David was
> Also, my understanding is that pulp_deb is not strictly under our control,
> but that we're hosting it specifically to let misa use our QA
> infrastructure, and because we might want to productise it at some point in
> the future.
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Jeremy Audet <jau...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Regarding the plugin repos, last year we talked about plugins being
>> completely autonomous (aside from abiding by our Code of Conduct). Wouldn’t
>> setting the required checks for projects like pulp_file, pulp_python,
>> pulp_deb, etc violate this autonomy? In other words, shouldn’t we let
>> plugin teams decide their own policy and what checks to enable?
>> Are pulp_file, pulp_python, pulp_deb, and so on autonomous projects? The
>> fact that they're hosted on GitHub under the pulp organization 
>> indicates that they're under our control. Since they're under our control,
>> we get to set the rules. If any of these projects really are autonomous,
>> then somebody please kick them out of the pulp organization.
>> If I was writing paychecks to a team of devs, and they refused to adopt
>> basic QA processes for their projects, I'd happily fire the entire dev
>> team. I can't be the only one who's had this thought.
>>  https://github.com/pulp
> Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev mailing list