gluster-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gluster-devel] Proposed change in Gerrit workflow


From: Vijay Bellur
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Proposed change in Gerrit workflow
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:16:47 +0530
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0

On 09/25/2012 07:26 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
On 09/25/2012 06:43 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
We intend to bring the following change in our gerrit based workflow:

- Introduce +2 and -2 for Verified in Gerrit
- +2 for Verified to be necessary for merging a patch

The intent of this proposed change is to get additional test coverage
and reduce the number of regressions that can sneak by. Jenkins would
continue to provide +1s for all submitted changes that pass basic smoke
tests. An additional +2 would be necessary from somebody who tests the
patch. Providing a +2 for Verified would be semantically similar to
adding a Tested-by: tag.

I like the idea generally, but I think it would be good to have a bit more
clarity about what testing +2 requires.  Is self-testing OK, or must it be
someone else?  Are manual tests OK, or must it be a (possibly new) part of the
standard functional/regression tests?  If manual tests are OK, what level of
explanation is required w.r.t. what tests were run on what configuration?  I
don't think we need to set the bar especially high right now, but IMO it does
need to be spelled out in our development-process doc.

Added details in the 'Patch Specific Verification' section here:

http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Development_Work_Flow_Proposed

Please feel free to comment/edit.

Thanks,
Vijay




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]