Adding gluster-devel ML.
Only concern to my earlier proposal was not making regression runs wait for
reviews, but to be triggered automatically after successful smoke.
The ask was to put burden on machines than on developers, which I agree to
start with. Lets watch the expenses due to this change
Amar, can you bring about an agreement/decision on this so that we can
make progress?
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:55 AM Deepshikha Khandelwal
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:30 PM Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay
> wrote:
>>
>> Checking back on this - do we need more voices or, amendments to
>>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:30 PM Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <
sankarshan.mukhopadh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Checking back on this - do we need more voices or, amendments to
> Amar's original proposal before we scope the implementation?
>
> I read Amar's proposal as desiring an outcome where the journey
Checking back on this - do we need more voices or, amendments to
Amar's original proposal before we scope the implementation?
I read Amar's proposal as desiring an outcome where the journey of a
valid/good patch through the test flows is fast and efficient.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:58 PM Raghav
