If we are going to allow overrides, then maybe what Owen is describing should occur. Make a request on the dev list and explain the reasoning.
I don't think this has been done and a few have already been overridden. Also who has the capability to override and knows how. How is that determined? On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:59 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > How do you override a check, anyway? > > Much like asking for jira permissions, wiki permissions, etc, just ask on > the dev list ;) > > Presumably this type of request would be made as a “last resort” following > a dev list discussion wherein all other reasonable options had been > exhausted (reworking or splitting up the PR, pushing empty commits, > rebasing the PR, etc) > > > On Oct 30, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > +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 <doev...@pivotal.io> 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 <n...@apache.org> 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 <alind...@pivotal.io> > >>> 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 <onich...@pivotal.io> > >>> 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 > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
