cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Fonseca <rsafons...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Commit to master through PR only
Date Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:42:51 GMT
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 <
WRodrigues@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 <remi@remi.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Good point Daan, I like it!
> >
> > 2015-06-25 16:49 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@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 <rsafonseca@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 <wido@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
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message