>
> If you don’t want to look at the OpenJDK11 jobs, simply click on the
> OpenJDK8 <
> https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop?groups=OpenJDK8>
> tab.
>
I'd follow the rule of thumb that the default should be what we want people
to look at. We don't want people to get desensitized that red CI => "This
is bad, I must jump into action". So I'd argue that the OpenJDK11 jobs
should not be in the default view until they are reliably green and at that
point also should block the pipeline.

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 2:02 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> If you don’t want to look at the OpenJDK11 jobs, simply click on the
> OpenJDK8 <
> https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop?groups=OpenJDK8>
> tab.
>
> For this week, the jobs we are not yet expecting to be green have been
> paused blue until related PRs are approved.  For example, UnitTestOpenJDK11
> and WindowsUnitTestOpenJDK11 will turn green as soon as PR 2591 <
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2591> is merged.
>
> Looking ahead to next week, if we need to hide all OpenJDK11 jobs, then do
> we unhide each one as it gets fixed?  Or wait for 100% green and then
> unhide them all at once?  Either way that’s a lot of PRs just for hiding
> and un-hiding.
>
> Even better, feel free to help get to green by picking up a subtask of
> GEODE-3 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3>.
>
> -Owen
>
> > On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:16 PM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to keeping them off the main tab.
> >
> > Having red jobs that aren't actionable will train us to ignore red jobs.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> I feel like it would be better to keep the Java 11 jobs off of the main
> tab
> >> in the pipeline until they are actually working. In the spirit of
> keeping
> >> develop releasable, we should keep the main pipeline clean and only
> include
> >> what is releasable today in the pipeline.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >> -Dan
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to