Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

+1, that sounds great. It would alleviate a lot of issues with respect to breakages. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > I want to introduce an ability to specify in the commit message for > pulpcore a PR for pulp_file and a PR for pulp-smash. Travis

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

I set up the pulp_file tests to install pulp 3.0-dev (although we could change this to nightly builds once those are being built): https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/.travis/install.sh#L6 In the situation you mentioned, we’d merge the PR to pulp and then rerun the PR tests against the

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

+1 pulpcore +0 pulp_file -1 Other plugins. I'm thinking about the situation where we need to fix a bug with a PR to pulpcore and to a plugin. How is the version of pulpcore determined for runnning the plugin tests? In the past, we used nightly builds, so plugins would have to wait 24 hours after

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

On 03/02/2018 03:20 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I had neglected to write up the temporary enable/disable part of the issue, so I just updated it here: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3379 In short, one of the pulp org owners (ipanova, ttereshc, rchan, jortel, bmbouter) can temporarily

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

lgtm. Thanks for explaining the process and where it will be documented for future reference, good update to the issue. On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > I had neglected to write up the temporary enable/disable part of the > issue, so I just updated it

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

I had neglected to write up the temporary enable/disable part of the issue, so I just updated it here: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3379 In short, one of the pulp org owners (ipanova, ttereshc, rchan, jortel, bmbouter) can temporarily enable/disable required checks. This issue would also add this

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

+1 to enabling checks for the 'pulp' and 'pulp_file' repos in Github with the ability to temporarily disable them. I wrote up this issue here to do that: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3379 I think we should enable these because we have a human-enforced policy that expects failed checks to not be

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

+0 on required github-enforcement, +1 to a strict human-enforced policy about tests passing for PR merges Reason being, an issue has occurred which would block valid PRs twice within the last month. The first being the test certs expiring on January 25th, the second being when we switched the PR

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

+1 to enabling the checks for the core pulp repos in Github. The only concern I have is that perhaps something happens outside of our control (e.g. Travis goes down) and we can’t merge PRs. In those cases though, we can temporarily disable checks. David On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Brian

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

> 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

> I _do_ think we need to formalize a set of rules about merging, though, and decide how strict we want to be about it. There are a few possibilities: I'm only indirectly affected by this decision, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. 1. I dislike option 1, because it unnecessarily ties

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

I don't think we should make it a hard *physical* block on PR merging. Setting aside the occasional infrastructure issues, we also have some unit tests (in pulp core, at least) that rely on e.g. non-expired certificates, and fixing those once they break would require circumventing the process or