From dev-return-32563-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@geode.apache.org Fri Nov 22 21:06:46 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 0B403180629 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:06:45 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 38081 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2019 21:06:45 -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 38068 invoked by uid 99); 22 Nov 2019 21:06:44 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:06:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 4563D1A4394 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:06:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-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-ec2-va.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30aRBftJANbl for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:06:43 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=148.163.150.38; helo=mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com; envelope-from=jhuynh@pivotal.io; receiver= Received: from mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com [148.163.150.38]) by mx1-ec2-va.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-ec2-va.apache.org) with ESMTPS id C8326BC53B for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:06:42 +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 xAML2c8k024660 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:06:41 GMT Received: from mail-ua1-f71.google.com (mail-ua1-f71.google.com [209.85.222.71]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2weaqpgn2e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:06:41 +0000 Received: by mail-ua1-f71.google.com with SMTP id g37so1375396uad.23 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:06:41 -0800 (PST) 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=5p8hHYxVkFblEGvzJg4c8Pft0Rn1JmbwIqdugN04ARI=; b=VEXNhPTXI97Fvbd4sOO298wOSwX53gjJLUKPNX+I6L8Q1AtuLpaWxn7dWR7CNrQYFF DgkXAJz7nyY5646zHRNuxmim6LydU1NdwTQjZywWpvY4nTYw1hnZi2lRGXQCGJc3kZQi YuY9QEhatL6QBa6pKHWucNr9tpYL5rhqmhdCOliVKAJ93Y2PAYJIsx7dgDPg9GYtm07D 55bzstagdOj0HJWB4MJEgxKMGdCWkiPvEX0/oG7ZV/y636AAewscHXpqFny8awVVuZkE Md0wB4NXzEhCtNpQEFwaqLP8CtkIk8gpJ2PZoK6Q0KeaIMnK8R+Y2aYC4YXVcWhr1Bc9 gNsw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUvnbkla7DD4XAQ0bsRa8y3e0V2NXurKaN8Jae8xGfheUVxJ7Ag s5jDLxDteZ/DKb8fSqIDb0/MyfPQnYT7EGb3gTvDvXMWCi2wRQDN6jUGfMVEpW9k5iBHyyTquul UVfMmtMdLkvceSdTNkUXBzNHCcOq2/7OXwiE8AX1cHWKpUKLgoQYHpQY= X-Received: by 2002:a67:c58e:: with SMTP id h14mr10875838vsk.104.1574456800455; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:06:40 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzmEVvJpGNTttHOwfcRSZHxIPxgR3oBJGrUNGohVoz+rzX+5z8Xcg6VXEV1P+V+MvK/V3su3wkgmW2bDNfiVG4= X-Received: by 2002:a67:c58e:: with SMTP id h14mr10875820vsk.104.1574456800081; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:06:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4DBBA605-9EEF-4102-86F5-500FCA30D7CB@pivotal.io> <8248b10e-a135-dbd4-d867-e9fa6ae679aa@apache.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jason Huynh Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:06:29 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] is overriding a PR check ever justified? To: geode Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004898840597f5ca27" X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-11-22_04:2019-11-21,2019-11-22 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=1 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1911220170 --0000000000004898840597f5ca27 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" @Udo - I think Naba was asking why the original commit that broke the pipeline wasn't detected. I think instead of a vote email, an email alerting the dev list that an override needs to take place is still good to have. If nothing else, to identify areas that we might be able to improve with additional coverage or checks. On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > @Naba.. wrong thread :) > > We have real scenario here now, where we have no consensus on whether we > are allowed or not allowed to override.. Do we vote now? OR do we apply > common sense? > > TBH, at this junction we should really just do whatever we believe is > correct. A committer is appointed due to trust, so we should trust that > our committers will do the right thing. > > But the same trust that our committers would always do the right thing > has gotten us to this point where we don't trust.... > > MUCH bigger chicken-and-egg problem. > > I motion that we vote on this. I would also like to request all those > AGAINST the override to provide strategies for us to not shoot-ourselves > in the foot. (like Dan said) > > --Udo > > On 11/22/19 12:30 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, why did the PR checks for GEODE-7488 not fail and > > allowed it be merged? Is something lacking in our testing? > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:19 PM Dan Smith wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM Owen Nichols > wrote: > >> > >>> Tallying the votes from this thread, it looks like the majority vote is > >> to > >>> NEVER allow override even in extreme circumstance. > >>> > >> I think a better way of summarizing this thread so far is that there > isn't > >> really a consensus on this point, opinions seem to be fairly split. This > >> wasn't a vote, and not everybody who expressed an opinion put a number > next > >> to their opinion or was directly aligned with the statement above. > >> > >> Maybe folks who think there should not be an override option could > propose > >> a specific process for dealing with issues like what Robert just did and > >> try to bring the rest of us on board with that? > >> > >> -Dan > >> > --0000000000004898840597f5ca27--