-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41659/#review111790
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


lgtm, thanks for adding this! Let me know what you think about the comment 
below, I'm fine to ship as-is if there's nothing to be done.


build-support/jenkins/review_feedback.py (lines 138 - 139)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/41659/#comment172047>

    Not sure there's anything we can do about it, but if the review has been 
committed but the RB was not marked as submitted we'll likely fail to apply the 
patch causing ReviewBot to ask if it needs to be rebased.
    
    Is there potentially a better way to message that edge case? If not, it's 
just something we need to be aware of (stay on top of closing RB's, and keep an 
eye out for erroneous "needs rebase" messages from ReviewBot).


- Joshua Cohen


On Dec. 22, 2015, 9:34 p.m., John Sirois wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/41659/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 22, 2015, 9:34 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and Bill Farner.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This adds support for following `depends-on` chains of in-flight RBs to
> form patch sets ultimately based off master.
> 
> Request processing logic is factored up into a helper class that main
> drives in a loop over pending RBs.
> 
>  build-support/jenkins/review_feedback.py | 246 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 143 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   build-support/jenkins/review_feedback.py 
> ee37742c78a7b28bc1ccc687afae17f711471fc4 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41659/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Extensive testing against a local server.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John Sirois
> 
>

Reply via email to