On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:31:31PM -0400, David Nalley wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:18:17AM +0000, Alex Huang wrote: > >> > >> To avoid having a bunch of reverts and resubmits, the developers > >> should be able to request that BVT run on their branch and don't > >> merge until BVT on their branch is at 100%. We will work on > >> figuring out how to do that. > >> > >> Comments? > >> > > Quick questions: > > > > 1. How do we test contributor code (from github/reviewboard) because > > we have no staging area/branch? > > > > Take a look at the pre-commit testing that hadoop does, that might be > usable for us. Olamy did a blog post about it recently. >
Thanks for the pointers! I will check it out. > > > > 4. Who will fix the tests which are broken? > > > > Well if we treat master as frozen until the tests are fixed, then I'd > suppose that folks wanting to get code in will be incentivized to at > least help fix them so that master can start getting code again :) > It's an imposition not an incentive then :) The reason for the impossibly long fix cycles for automated tests is mainly because there isn't any review of test plans and tests automated from those plans. So the project coming to Apache to *me* personally has been a boon in this way to fix this process failure. At least now we have reviews and a few more eyes looking at the problems ... even more would help. Once we get to fixing the existing tests I think everyone will begin to see how bloated some of them can get and can be simplified from an automated perspective. So I'm in on Alex's plan, in fact I fix tests everyday so glad to have others join the effort. -- Prasanna., ------------------------ Powered by BigRock.com
