https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115
Nigel Babu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115
Nigel Babu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #5 from Nigel Babu ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115
--- Comment #4 from Amar Tumballi ---
No serious need of 'Vote' at present. This can be 'SUCCESS', 'FAILURE', ABORT
or whatever.. as the person triggering the run, I would look up the result
before voting.
Lets get the basic trigger infra to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115
Nigel Babu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nig...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Ni
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115
--- Comment #2 from Amar Tumballi ---
I personally feel lesser tick-boxes, but more commands, and documenting them.
It would get closer to github flow, so it will reduce the overall dependency to
understand gerrit for someone who comes from gi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564115
--- Comment #1 from Niels de Vos ---
We now have a "Verified" label in Gerrit. I think it should be possible to add
an other label "Test w/ brick-mux' or similar that triggers this special test.
It will be used more than when a magic comment i
