Mailing-List: contact dev-help@aurora.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@aurora.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOTkfX6Cd1kHN_hExmS-aXLyigeKLW4NGD4D_XZwnT=SwYCO5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMnduq9QWBXXmo5_bGysQc_gQAOtC3a-pwMpvuX1eQ1Opviq3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTkfX6Cd1kHN_hExmS-aXLyigeKLW4NGD4D_XZwnT=SwYCO5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:52:30 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAGRA8uPghy7zMr8Apg=gLbFzgUvGhxjXQ1nAtVr4Nt+c8Z3JNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Testing Done in RB?
From: Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org>
To: "dev@aurora.incubator.apache.org" <dev@aurora.incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122eb9c7af36d050fc5e785

--089e0122eb9c7af36d050fc5e785
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'm generally -1 to requiring humans to perform (what i perceive to be)
superfluous redundant tasks.

In this case, the standard suite of tests should be expected as part of any
patch affecting code, which is why the review bot runs them.  For that
reason, i've mostly been using 'Testing done' to reference additional
testing.

I'm a stronger -1 on including this field in commit messages, for the
reason Maxim notes above.

-=Bill

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <maxim@apache.org>
wrote:

> I am +1 on filling the test section as it may be a good indicator of
> what testing has been attempted (e.g. java-only, python-only, python
> sub-target, vagrant e2e, vagrant manual).
>
> I am -1 on having this included into the commit message as it blows up
> the commit message size and makes for a hard to read arbitrary
> length/formatted commit. The RB link should be enough to get commit
> details and testing done.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Joshua Cohen <jcohen@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
> > This came up in a review and I figured it'd be better discussed here
> rather
> > than in a review that most folks probably aren't reading.
> >
> > Do people find value in this section being filled in? The argument
> against
> > is generally that it's always the same value and if we wait for a ship it
> > from ReviewBot we have assurance that everything is kosher. The argument
> > for is that it serves as an example for new committers on how to run
> tests,
> > however this was on the assumption that the full commit message from `rbt
> > patch` was used. It seems that some people edit the testing done section
> > out before merging commits from RB(?).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Joshua
>

--089e0122eb9c7af36d050fc5e785--