@Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> @Robert Houghton <rhough...@pivotal.io> I have an interest in expediting docs-only PRs and would be interested in participating in a break-out discussion (or at least reviewing the conclusions).
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 9:15 AM Robert Houghton <rhough...@pivotal.io> wrote: > @Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> I have some ideas on this. Want to > look at in on Thursday with me? > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 5:28 AM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > Let’s find a way to get the ci, docs, and other directories not effected > > by tests out of this testing hold. > > > > > On Dec 27, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Nabarun Nag <n...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > > Please maintain the branch protection rules. > > > Waiting for reviews and Unit tests to pass does not stifle > productivity, > > > but prevents us from making mistakes that are detrimental to the entire > > > community. If I am not mistaken, we still have pushed code which broke > > > builds and regressions. I would suggest not removing but improving / > add > > > ons to the checks to prevent such issues from happening again. > > > > > > Also, personally I feel that CI code can separated out of geode code > base > > > as they have no tests to run and they can circumvent the unit test pass > > > criteria. > > > > > > I would just like to say that fixing tests is all of our > responsibility, > > > not a particular group of developers. > > > > > > Regards > > > Naba > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 3:05 PM Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Just to add more flavor to my previous response... I currently have a > PR > > >> open that modified a method signature that touched a few WAN tests. > It > > was > > >> a simple change, removing an unused parameter. StressNewTest failed > > and I > > >> had to spend another day figuring out 10 or so different failures. A > > waste > > >> of time? Maybe.. At first, I wasn't going to continue, but after > > trying a > > >> few things, it looks like the tests installed a listener that was > > hampering > > >> other tests. At the end (soon once it gets reviewed/merged), we end > up > > >> with a Green PR and hopefully have unblocked others on these specific > > tests > > >> in the future. > > >> > > >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 2:58 PM Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I feel the frustration at times, but I do also think the ci/pipelines > > are > > >>> improving, breaking less often. I'm ok with the way things are for > the > > >>> moment > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 1:47 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> In October we agreed to require at least 1 reviewer and 4 passing PR > > >>>> checks before a PR can be merged. Now that we’re tried it for a few > > >>>> months, do we like it? > > >>>> > > >>>> I saw some strong opinions on the dev list recently: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Changes to the infrastructure to flat out prevent things that > should > > >> be > > >>>> self policing is annoying. This PR review lock we have had already > > cost > > >> us > > >>>> valuable time waiting for PR pipelines to pass that have no > relevance > > to > > >>>> the commit, like CI work. I hate to see process enforced that keeps > us > > >> from > > >>>> getting work done when necessary. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> and > > >>>> > > >>>>> I think we're getting more and more bureaucratic in our process and > > >>>> that it stifles productivity. I was recently forced to spend three > > days > > >>>> fixing tests in which I had changed an import statement before they > > >> would > > >>>> pass stress testing. I'm glad the tests now pass reliably but I was > > >> very > > >>>> frustrated by the process. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Just wondering if others feel the same way. Is it time to make some > > >>>> changes? > > >>>> > > >>>> -Owen > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
