Re: [linuxtools-dev] Hudson CI NAK'ing patches

[Alexandre Montplaisir <alexmonthy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13-11-21 06:42 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> I am a bit leery of this.  A test failure should not occur and I'm not
> sure everyone will be diligent in tracking their errors.  IMO, tests
> that are randomly failing elsewhere should be disabled and fixed by
> whoever owns them (i.e. if some non-related test keeps failing, push a patch to
> disable it and send a note to the list for someone to fix it).
>
> A verification build can be retriggered after failure if it just hiccups
> unexpectedly (e.g. Eclipse.org issue).  If one follows the build started 
> message URL and logs in, the build can be retriggered.  A success will
> then remove the veto.
>
> Looking at the linuxtools-gerrit job, it appears that Alex, myself, Roland,
> Sami, and Patrick have the ability to build.  We could add yourself and others
> to the build list.  Worst case scenario is you can ask one of us who has access to
> retrigger the build if you feel it is randomly failing.

Ah ok, I didn't know others had access to those settings. If we can
re-launch the Hudson build manually, then it it a big improvement over
having to re-push the patch manually (and having to do trivial changes
to it for Gerrit to take it, etc.).

Thanks,
Alexandre

>
> -- Jeff J.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Linux Tools developer discussions" <linuxtools-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:01:45 PM
> Subject: [linuxtools-dev] Hudson CI NAK'ing patches
>
> Hi all,
>
> What would you think of making the Hudson-Gerrit plugin (a.k.a. Hudson
> CI) giving "-1 Code Review" on Gerrit, instead of the current "-1
> Verified"? The difference is that a committer can override a -1 CR when
> giving it a +2, which allows pushing the patch anyway. When "-1
> Verified" is given however, the patch is effectively veto'ed and cannot
> be merged at all through Gerrit, unless you rebase it manually, or if
> you push it directly through Git.
>
> We do appreciate Hudson CI running the compilation/tests and reporting
> the results. It's very helpful! However there are cases where the
> failures are unrelated to the code being reviewed (unit test failures in
> other projects, random brokage at Eclipse, etc.) and, imo, the human
> should be able to ignore what Hudson says. Without having to resort to
> dirty tricks like push-it-before-Hudson-runs or pushing through Git.
>
> I'm not sure how to change this, but CDT has their Gerrit set up this
> way, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre
> _______________________________________________
> linuxtools-dev mailing list
> linuxtools-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
> _______________________________________________
> linuxtools-dev mailing list
> linuxtools-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev