geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] is overriding a PR check ever justified?
Date Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:42:35 GMT
+1 for allowing overrides. I think we should avoid backing ourselves into a
corner where we can't get anything into develop without talking to apache
infra. Some infrastructure things we can't even fix without pushing a
change develop!

How do you override a check, anyway?

-Dan

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:58 PM Donal Evans <doevans@pivotal.io> wrote:

> -1 to overriding from me.
>
> The question I have here is what's the rush? Is anything ever so
> time-sensitive that you can't even wait the 15 minutes it takes for it to
> build and run unit tests? If some infrastructure problem is preventing
> builds or tests from completing then that should be fixed before any new
> changes are added, otherwise what's the point in even having the pre
> check-in process?
>
> -Donal
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > @Aaron
> > It's okay to wait for at least the build, and unit tests to complete, to
> > cover all the bases. [There may have been commits in between which may
> > result in failure because of the revert]  And it's not hard to get a PR
> > approval.
> >
> > -1 on overriding. If the infrastructure is down, which is the test
> > framework designed to ensure that we are not checking in unwanted changes
> > into Apache Geode, wait for the infrastructure to be up, get your changes
> > verified, get the review from a fellow committer and then check-in your
> > changes.
> >
> > I still don't understand why will anyone not wait for unit tests and
> build
> > to be successful.
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:32 AM Aaron Lindsey <alindsey@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One case when it might be acceptable to overrule a PR check is
> reverting
> > a
> > > commit. Before the branch protection was enabled, a committer could
> > revert
> > > a commit without a PR. Now that PRs are mandatory, we have to wait for
> > the
> > > checks to run in order to revert a commit. Usually we are reverting a
> > > commit because it's causing problems, so I think overruling the PR
> checks
> > > may be acceptable in that case.
> > >
> > > - Aaron
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Owen Nichols <onichols@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Our new branch-protection rules can sometimes lead to unexpected
> > > obstacles
> > > > when infrastructure issues impede the intended process.  Should we
> > > discuss
> > > > such cases as they come up, and should overruling the result of a PR
> > > check
> > > > ever be an option on the table?
> > > >
> > > > -Owen
> > >
> >
>

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