On 08/12/2014 07:17 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2014-08-12 17:43:37 +1000 (+1000), Joshua Hesketh wrote: >> Right, and even if we did change all the 3rd parties over to >> something that doesn't start with 'recheck' there will be >> inconsistencies between 3rd parties and 1st party. > [...] > > If this is really something the various CI operators want to support > (rather than merely something which has been cargo-culted as a > behavior they're expected to emulate), I think we need a separate > syntax for it which lacks the encumbrance of the currently ambiguous > "recheck" ad-hoc language which has grown arbitrarily by convention. > > However, I also don't personally think that rechecking one specific > CI makes sense, and would rather just have them all run every time > you say "recheck" since otherwise you end up pin-and-tumbler > lockpicking racy bugs (selectively rerererecheck each CI until you > get a good run and then hold that result while you work through the > rest of them in turn). > > I'm less worried about the small amount of resource waste in the > upstream OpenStack project infrastructure from people getting jobs > rerun when they recheck for some failed third-party result. The > expectation we ultimately need to set is that every CI should pass > pretty much all of the time on a good change and if it doesn't then > it must be fixed (upstream CI included). Allowing you to selectively > rerun jobs from one system reinforces the idea that it's okay to > fail frequently as long as devs are eventually able to coax out a > passing run. > I'm not sure if the folks on this thread are aware of this patch offering yet: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109565/
It would be great to get your thoughts on it. Thanks, Anita. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
