Re: [ovirt-devel] Actively triggering of CI jobs

2016-01-15 Thread David Caro 
On 12/09 14:09, Amit Aviram wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:15 PM, David Caro  wrote:
> 
> > On 12/09 12:00, Amit Aviram wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
> > > > almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
> > > > I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
> > > > fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
> > > > mostly been placed in their hands...
> > >
> > >
> > > What I'm offering is not letting us a choice, exactly because what you
> > are
> > > saying regarding the fact that most of the influence of what happens in
> > CI
> > > is in our hands. otherwise what happens is the current situation where
> > > some/most of the developers are not aware of their options, or misses the
> > > mails or whatever..
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their
> > > > patches
> > > > > drafts.. moreover,
> > > > > - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it
> > is a
> > > > > draft. (and I'm not the only one)
> > > >
> > > > Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read
> > this.
> > > >
> > > > > - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a
> > draft
> > > > >
> > > > By 'label' you mean set topic?
> > > > Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
> > > > indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
> > > >
> > > > > nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the
> > reality
> > > > is
> > > > > that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice
> > things
> > > > you
> > > > > guys show here..
> > > >
> > > > I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...)  should
> > > > jobs not run?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Most of the review process doesn't need the jobs to run. a patch has
> > 5-10,
> > > and sometimes much more sets until it is being merged- you don't need to
> > > run the jobs every single time you are updating your patch..
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I still think that it will be a better solution to force the
> > developer to
> > > > > activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even
> > doing
> > > > it
> > > > > with the jenkins client..)
> > > > >
> > > > We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
> > > > by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
> > > > by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.
> > >
> > >
> > > The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.
> > > I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..
> > > As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered
> > only
> > > when needed.
> >
> > That's not true, the workflow make job enabling optional, if you don't set
> > it,
> > it will not run
> >
> 
> So I think we should use it :)
> Why was it rejected?
> 

Most people that answered just did not like the idea, they though
that it was too much extra process for the developer, and that they
had enough with the drafts for now.

> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Barak Korren
> > > > bkor...@redhat.com
> > > > RHEV-CI Team
> > > >
> >
> > > ___
> > > Infra mailing list
> > > in...@ovirt.org
> > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Caro
> >
> > Red Hat S.L.
> > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R
> >
> > Tel.: +420 532 294 605
> > Email: dc...@redhat.com
> > IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
> > Web: www.redhat.com
> > RHT Global #: 82-62605
> >

-- 
David Caro

Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R

Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dc...@redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [ovirt-devel] Actively triggering of CI jobs

2015-12-09 Thread Barak Korren 
>>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
>>> >
>
> That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
>

Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
mostly been placed in their hands...

>
> From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their patches
> drafts.. moreover,
> - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it is a
> draft. (and I'm not the only one)

We, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read this.

> - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a draft
>
By 'label' you mean set topic?
Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.

> nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the reality is
> that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice things you
> guys show here..

I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...)  should
jobs not run?

>
> I still think that it will be a better solution to force the developer to
> activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even doing it
> with the jenkins client..)
>
We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.


-- 
Barak Korren
bkor...@redhat.com
RHEV-CI Team
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [ovirt-devel] Actively triggering of CI jobs

2015-12-09 Thread Amit Aviram 
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren  wrote:

> >>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
> >>> >
> >
> > That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
> >
>
> Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
> almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
> I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
> fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
> mostly been placed in their hands...


What I'm offering is not letting us a choice, exactly because what you are
saying regarding the fact that most of the influence of what happens in CI
is in our hands. otherwise what happens is the current situation where
some/most of the developers are not aware of their options, or misses the
mails or whatever..


> >
> > From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their
> patches
> > drafts.. moreover,
> > - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it is a
> > draft. (and I'm not the only one)
>
> Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read this.
>
> > - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a draft
> >
> By 'label' you mean set topic?
> Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
> indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
>
> > nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the reality
> is
> > that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice things
> you
> > guys show here..
>
> I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...)  should
> jobs not run?
>

Most of the review process doesn't need the jobs to run. a patch has 5-10,
and sometimes much more sets until it is being merged- you don't need to
run the jobs every single time you are updating your patch..


>
> >
> > I still think that it will be a better solution to force the developer to
> > activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even doing
> it
> > with the jenkins client..)
> >
> We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
> by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
> by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.


The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.
I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..
As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered only
when needed.



>
> --
> Barak Korren
> bkor...@redhat.com
> RHEV-CI Team
>
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [ovirt-devel] Actively triggering of CI jobs

2015-12-09 Thread David Caro 
On 12/09 12:00, Amit Aviram wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren  wrote:
> 
> > >>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
> > >>> >
> > >
> > > That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
> > >
> >
> > Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
> > almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
> > I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
> > fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
> > mostly been placed in their hands...
> 
> 
> What I'm offering is not letting us a choice, exactly because what you are
> saying regarding the fact that most of the influence of what happens in CI
> is in our hands. otherwise what happens is the current situation where
> some/most of the developers are not aware of their options, or misses the
> mails or whatever..
> 
> 
> > >
> > > From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their
> > patches
> > > drafts.. moreover,
> > > - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it is a
> > > draft. (and I'm not the only one)
> >
> > Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read this.
> >
> > > - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a draft
> > >
> > By 'label' you mean set topic?
> > Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
> > indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
> >
> > > nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the reality
> > is
> > > that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice things
> > you
> > > guys show here..
> >
> > I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...)  should
> > jobs not run?
> >
> 
> Most of the review process doesn't need the jobs to run. a patch has 5-10,
> and sometimes much more sets until it is being merged- you don't need to
> run the jobs every single time you are updating your patch..
> 
> 
> >
> > >
> > > I still think that it will be a better solution to force the developer to
> > > activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even doing
> > it
> > > with the jenkins client..)
> > >
> > We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
> > by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
> > by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.
> 
> 
> The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.
> I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..
> As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered only
> when needed.

That's not true, the workflow make job enabling optional, if you don't set it,
it will not run

> 
> 
> 
> >
> > --
> > Barak Korren
> > bkor...@redhat.com
> > RHEV-CI Team
> >

> ___
> Infra mailing list
> in...@ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra


-- 
David Caro

Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R

Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dc...@redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [ovirt-devel] Actively triggering of CI jobs

2015-12-09 Thread Amit Aviram 
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:15 PM, David Caro  wrote:

> On 12/09 12:00, Amit Aviram wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren 
> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
> > > >>> >
> > > >
> > > > That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
> > > almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
> > > I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
> > > fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
> > > mostly been placed in their hands...
> >
> >
> > What I'm offering is not letting us a choice, exactly because what you
> are
> > saying regarding the fact that most of the influence of what happens in
> CI
> > is in our hands. otherwise what happens is the current situation where
> > some/most of the developers are not aware of their options, or misses the
> > mails or whatever..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their
> > > patches
> > > > drafts.. moreover,
> > > > - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it
> is a
> > > > draft. (and I'm not the only one)
> > >
> > > Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read
> this.
> > >
> > > > - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a
> draft
> > > >
> > > By 'label' you mean set topic?
> > > Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
> > > indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
> > >
> > > > nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the
> reality
> > > is
> > > > that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice
> things
> > > you
> > > > guys show here..
> > >
> > > I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...)  should
> > > jobs not run?
> > >
> >
> > Most of the review process doesn't need the jobs to run. a patch has
> 5-10,
> > and sometimes much more sets until it is being merged- you don't need to
> > run the jobs every single time you are updating your patch..
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I still think that it will be a better solution to force the
> developer to
> > > > activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even
> doing
> > > it
> > > > with the jenkins client..)
> > > >
> > > We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
> > > by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
> > > by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.
> >
> >
> > The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.
> > I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..
> > As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered
> only
> > when needed.
>
> That's not true, the workflow make job enabling optional, if you don't set
> it,
> it will not run
>

So I think we should use it :)
Why was it rejected?


> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Barak Korren
> > > bkor...@redhat.com
> > > RHEV-CI Team
> > >
>
> > ___
> > Infra mailing list
> > in...@ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
>
>
> --
> David Caro
>
> Red Hat S.L.
> Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R
>
> Tel.: +420 532 294 605
> Email: dc...@redhat.com
> IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
> Web: www.redhat.com
> RHT Global #: 82-62605
>
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel