From dev-return-32300-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@geode.apache.org Wed Oct 30 20:42:55 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 9370A180654 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:42:55 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 22982 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2019 20:42:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geode.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@geode.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geode.apache.org Received: (qmail 22971 invoked by uid 99); 30 Oct 2019 20:42:54 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:42:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 01877C1CFA for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:42:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-he-de.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QF0p6ZVNGLTL for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:42:52 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=148.163.150.38; helo=mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com; envelope-from=dsmith@pivotal.io; receiver= Received: from mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com [148.163.150.38]) by mx1-he-de.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-he-de.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 838847F5F4 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0114581.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x9UKWNTJ017361 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:42:49 GMT Received: from mail-vk1-f197.google.com (mail-vk1-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vxweqs1sc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:42:48 +0000 Received: by mail-vk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id u64so1423303vke.18 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:42:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=vTe1jluBLowYj0i9RQb6cwIIQdVfxe4SYBEVJfNLnUk=; b=O5cF8LenUxddeSU89w+b8BOd/hAaAFKI1DUWpuaAwIilhwW8zJHd50hxYgof/pfGCB vbgx26ZUe4p+4cq6uEfj4SJ1CF0PyK3yYnmJ11OPQPDIRADn7EpI6zbBgSln3KouVWOk Z/5lpGWiAXrufzD/zc4ZPNaB8+HOVPWqwqKvn4B3FBINz7N1T9bqo5LXDckvDMB1QOAD OMYJK9aAujraP0u4AHAv+mOn+5gtURcBYJjn/RSaTJsNCooVcIcw8maqHO4sl4n65Pwi aWxUP5vtOmytHs/V4j4JczJACZsmr1zGiAJJqvN9VhLSBeYGbNyECIdrmgU5mEPVyPEF +5eA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW0LVrCy8iSGvuAX9WL6mZlvpet7CHhQZx29o+AG39V1XKb9B5h W4bBbT9ndV0T5i9h+jYceB/enAK4EjjWVIG1gOX4OYPoi4D0e0mjCr/hwOSSNYPljsI1wKpdaVZ 4JQWF6IDTFWcm9O303QzYJC1ZpahdKmlGmnrll5a7RjcExqgOOnBh7Ag= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fe46:: with SMTP id m6mr876475vsr.119.1572468167292; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:42:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwPCm5/8/rGoSMQG5JeF61JzBpTYz4ZGwj/AXvjyQbHciqa9G8pae6Ll9amEyfV4GLjjd10I29Qedmp9Vi9pZY= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fe46:: with SMTP id m6mr876463vsr.119.1572468166915; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:42:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dan Smith Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:42:35 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] is overriding a PR check ever justified? To: dev@geode.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000829613059626c6b3" X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,1.0.8 definitions=2019-10-30_08:2019-10-30,2019-10-30 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=3 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1908290000 definitions=main-1910300180 --000000000000829613059626c6b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +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 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 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 > > 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 > > 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 > > > > > > --000000000000829613059626c6b3--