On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:35:52AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 07/25/2014 07:17 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:09:56AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > >> On 07/25/2014 06:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 06:38:29AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > >>>> On 07/25/2014 01:18 AM, Ian Wienand wrote: > >>>>> On 07/16/2014 11:15 PM, Alexis Lee wrote: > >>>>>> What do you think about allowing some text after the words "recheck no > >>>>>> bug"? > >>>>> > >>>>> I think this is a good idea; I am often away from a change for a bit, > >>>>> something happens in-between and Jenkins fails it, but chasing it down > >>>>> days later is fairly pointless given how fast things move. > >>>>> > >>>>> It would be nice if I could indicate "I thought about this". In fact, > >>>>> there might be an argument for *requiring* a reason > >>>>> > >>>>> I proposed [1] to allow this > >>>>> > >>>>> -i > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109492/ > >>>> > >>>> At the QA / Infra meetup we actually talked about the recheck syntax, > >>>> and to change the way elastic recheck is interacting with the user. > >>>> > >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-infra/elastic-recheck+branch:master+topic:erchanges,n,z > >>>> > >>>> and > >>>> > >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-infra/config+branch:master+topic:er,n,z > >>>> > >>>> Are the result of that. Basically going forward we'll just support > >>>> > >>>> 'recheck.*' > >>> > >>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that ? Are we going to > >>> use the literal string 'recheck.*' or do you mean we'll use 'recheck' > >>> and the user can put arbitrary text after it ? > >> > >> Sorry, I think in regex. recheck + arbitrary string. > > > > Would that still allow us to only trigger 3rd party CI ? eg if we do > > 'recheck xenserver' I don't want to trigger the main CI, only the Xen > > CI. > > No, the 3rd party folks went off and created a grammar without > discussing it with the infra team (also against specific objections to > doing so). Such it is.
Whether or not we agree with the current syntax, it is *critical* to maintain this ability to trigger only 3rd party CI systems, otherwise the odds of being able to get a pass from all CI go down the toilet even further than they already are. We must resolve this before introducing the new syntax Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
