I did not mean to imply that you were saying red travis was fine :) Just that it was requiring same number of people to look at it as the green travis, of course no one should put in a LGTM on a failed travis without looking at what the travis output was :)
Even the fuzzy stuff can be booleanized, perhaps i did over-simplify it hehe.. full function would be: ( ( Green_Travis && 2LGTM) || ( Red_Travis_false_positive && 2LGTM_Extended) && (!Red_Travis_real_problem_in_code) ) Just skipped the obvious last part for readability. My point is that Green travis should also count as a vote, hence: ( Green_Travis && 1LGTM) || ( Red_Travis_false_positive && 2LGTM_Extended) Or if we really want the extra overhead: ( Green_Travis && 2LGTM) || ( Red_Travis_false_positive && 3LGTM_Extended) On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I said that red travis is requiring extra explanation by the LGTMers > to justify overrinding travis as an alternative to green travis. Not > that red travis is fine. > > your logic is too boolean, not fuzzy enough > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Rafael Fonseca <rsafons...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I agree with Daan also, but there's a conflict here.. > > > > Initial suggestion: > > > > ( Green_Travis && 2LGTM) > > > > Daan suggested: > > > > ( Red_Travis && 2LGTM) > > > > Which would make for: > > > > ( Green_Travis && 2LGTM) || ( Red_Travis && 2LGTM) > > > > Or apply boolean logic to remove redundant parameters: > > > > (2LGTM) > > > > This would completely remove whatever travis says from the equation... if > > we do have some trust on when travis says go... it should be: > > > > ( Green_Travis && 1LGTM) || ( Red_Travis && 2LGTM) > > > > Or if we really want the extra overhead: > > > > ( Green_Travis && 2LGTM) || ( Red_Travis && 3LGTM) > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Wilder Rodrigues < > > wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > > > >> Clean and simple, Sebastien. I like that. :) > >> > >> Concerning Travis, I’m with Daan and Remi: in case of a red Travis run, > a > >> good analysis on the results is needed before saying no. > >> > >> Let’s make ACS more awesome! ;) > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Wilder > >> > >> > >> > On 25 Jun 2015, at 22:03, Remi Bergsma <r...@remi.nl> wrote: > >> > > >> > Good point Daan, I like it! > >> > > >> > 2015-06-25 16:49 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>: > >> > > >> >> I still don't think travis is reliable enough to give a definite > 'no'. > >> >> Two LGTMs is fine and a good argument if travis is red on why this is > >> >> not a problem for this case. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Rafael Fonseca < > rsafons...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> Couldn't make it either :'( > >> >>> > >> >>> I think it's a very sound idea in principle, but afraid waiting for > two > >> >>> LGTM might slow things down even further... up to the majority vote > i > >> >> guess > >> >>> it's a good principle either way :) > >> >>> > >> >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> >>>> Hash: SHA1 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 06/25/2015 04:38 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > >> >>>>> Folks, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> A few of us are in Amsterdam at DevOps days. We are chatting about > >> >>>>> release management procedure. Remi is working on a set of > >> >>>>> principles that he will put on the wiki to start a [DISCUSS]. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Bummer I couldn't make it :( > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> However to get started on the right track. I would like to propose > >> >>>>> the following easy step: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Starting Monday June 29th (next monday): > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> - Only commit through PR will land on master (after a minimum of 2 > >> >>>>> LGTM and green Travis results) - Direct commit will be reverted - > >> >>>>> Any committer can merge the PR. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Goal being to start having a new practice -everything through PR > >> >>>>> for everyone- which is an easy way to gate our own commits > building > >> >>>>> up to a PR. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I'd say this is a good idea :-) > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> There is no tooling involved, just human agreement. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> cheers, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -Sebastien > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> >>>> Version: GnuPG v1 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVjBMAAAoJEAGbWC3bPspCRYkP/jGuB3qelhlwNKY0UJZVs43T > >> >>>> wh3+8TKO2OTuchR4TLqJDLpWcpaHYamxukDDwNyI2+7hpZuNNnT6t4KhA5CpSITj > >> >>>> BVa8M9nBJAKXjPcnSPNCE8RYA6BPfwnywupwA294rnNcclDurzdHd6WssE0VCH0g > >> >>>> XDM8vuA1tKx55B5TTQSNwDNdlai6aaB/xTQRoFXQWEUwwkyDZF16kvYvglhycVKn > >> >>>> hpg/tpl4VEGCA3G5ddX3fFGDYYUFYoAYO62zpLaq9xUQN2iVny3LO9LhznfXqUc2 > >> >>>> XUaksY9hW/8HgaeipbbbWekRZ3J/XCc9/fchFna41WlJOxju49Do5nVTtV3UdBVh > >> >>>> BVBW7NTmnlX3Bs9zyFyp21SIvbQMRDLTolHx0GH9rPhU34l9ww/10MEBPNP0wS7K > >> >>>> Xg/0TpsAviUijqKjxNbXMG+bTaPMrUtDHuoJMWUbGf+KVHVlUdNvshaURlL8SAFW > >> >>>> CIRWhj5Ww+rRyIrpXjC7zXv/qg7aTPD1e02nV7XfoldyDRe72QUmwa7umwZkjvQ6 > >> >>>> r9Fxu9S0fySbakAWxYVGjQbCpK+xGCY0ndzH/eYNnf8SX2MGIEKapbJ0kkTWvTu7 > >> >>>> aQvV/Y9hLAGMNlYCPiAK4eBFgNc7wdG/D+ZZ6t8Oxmb5O9WMlBCddvvX4mn5UlIo > >> >>>> gbjGNJ/+Swk3z4potjpD > >> >>>> =SkOY > >> >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Daan > >> >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Daan >
