08.12.2017, 18:50, "Oswald Buddenhagen" <[email protected]>: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:15:10PM +0100, Sergio Ahumada wrote: >> On 08.12.2017 15:42, Adam Treat wrote: >> > Relying upon qt5 submodule pins is the problem. The underlying issue is >> > atomicity of commits. Oswald is right. >> > >> > We need to have a way to provide atomic commits across modules at least >> > the CI should see these as atomic and integrate accordingly. >> > >> >> what about trying to enable gerrit topic's feature again for cross-repo >> changes? > > from the ci perspective, that's both pointless (because the grouping can > be achieved temporally by just staging the changes at the same time) and > insufficient (because the system currently just won't do atomic > integrations). > > if you want to use the topic name as the label that has been originally > proposed, regardless of the CI system, then there is nothing to fix: > the ability to set the topic has been available forever (it just does > not have any magic effect on integration). > the problem with such "soft-labeling" is of course that it's laborious > and terribly easy to mess up. > > fwiw, openstack's zuul recognizes explicit dependency markers in commit > message footers, which is kind of a middle ground (it's formalized, so > it can be checked).
If git hashes were used instead of Change-Id's, it would be useful to store this information in git commits (in case of future need for bisecting) i'm not a particular fan of their gerrit<=>ci > integration approach to start with, though. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
