The reason I wanted a gerrit hook is to avoid putting a -1 until VDSM is clean
It's supposed to be a transitional state.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itamar Heim" <ih...@redhat.com>
> To: "Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden" <ew...@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 5:52:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [vdsm] PEP8 in VDSM code
> On 03/26/2012 11:26 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:57:24AM -0400, Ayal Baron wrote:
> >>> I'd rather avoid gerrit hooks if possible to use a jenkins job to
> >>> validate this to keep the gerrit deployment as simple to
> >>> maintain/upgrade as possible.
> >> But that's the wrong place to be doing it.
> >> Jenkins periodically polls for changes and then runs a job and
> >> posts
> >> the results somewhere (who would get the email?)
> >> Here the committer would immediately know that there is a problem
> >> with
> >> the patch and reviewers also immediately know not to accept it.
> > I think what Itamar is getting at is that from gerrit you can
> > trigger
> > jenkins jobs which give a -1 if it fails. If jenkins checks for
> > pep8
> > you've solved the feedback issue without creating custom a gerrit
> > hook.
> > It will also be more scalable since you can add pyflakes / pylint /
> > ...
> > in the same check.
> per ayal's question - patch owner and reviewers will get the email,
> any other review.
> we need to keep the gerrit as simple as possible wrt maintenance.
> vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel mailing list