Having the test passing does not mean that a patch is fine. Which is why we have a review check list. I never put a patch available without having the tests passing but most of my patches never pass on the first try. We always make mistakes no matter how hard we try. The reviewer job is to catch those mistakes by looking at the patch from another angle. Of course, sometime, both of them fail.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. The LHFC crew should always pay it forward. Not many of us have a > super computer to run all the tests, but for things that are out there > marked patch_available apply it to see that it applies clean, if it > includes a test run that test (and possibly some related ones in the > file/folder etc for quick coverage). A nice initial sweep is a good thing. > > I have seen before a process which triggered and auto-build when the patch > was added to the ticket. This took a burden off the committers, by the time > someone got to the ticket they already knew if tests passed then it was > only a style and fine tuning review. > > In this case if we have a good initial pass we can hopefully speed along > the process. > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:18 AM, kurt Greaves <k...@instaclustr.com> > wrote: > > > On 19 October 2016 at 05:30, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > if you are offering up resources for review and test coverage, > > > there is work out there. Most immediately in the department of reviews > > > for "Patch Available." > > > > > > > We can certainly put some minds to this. There are a few of us with a > very > > good understanding of working Cassandra yet could use more exposure to > the > > code base. We'll start getting out there and looking for things to > review. > > > > Kurt Greaves > > k...@instaclustr.com > > www.instaclustr.com > > >
