[Gluster-devel] Proposed change in Gerrit workflow

[Vijay Bellur]

On 09/26/2012 02:52 PM, Deepak C Shetty wrote:
> On 09/26/2012 11:41 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
>> On 09/26/2012 10:34 AM, Deepak C Shetty wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2012 04:13 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> We intend to bring the following change in our gerrit based workflow:
>>>>
>>>> - Introduce +2 and -2 for Verified in Gerrit
>>>> - +2 for Verified to be necessary for merging a patch
>>>>
>>>> The intent of this proposed change is to get additional test coverage
>>>> and reduce the number of regressions that can sneak by. Jenkins would
>>>> continue to provide +1s for all submitted changes that pass basic
>>>> smoke tests. An additional +2 would be necessary from somebody who
>>>> tests the patch. Providing a +2 for Verified would be semantically
>>>> similar to adding a Tested-by: tag.
>>> I have a basic doubt here.. How is +2 verified different than +1
>>> verified, which is currently provided by either the author or someone
>>> else or both. I assume that the Jenkins +1 verified is not the only
>>> thing that is seen by the maintainer before merging the patch, he/she
>>> should be looking at +1 verified from the author or someother person and
>>> take the decision accordingly during merge.
>>>
>>
>> That is not the work flow model we follow currently. Authors and
>> testers do not provide +1 verified usually and patches do get accepted
>> with +1 verified from Jenkins. The necessary condition today for
>> accepting a patch is +2 Code Review and +1 Verified. With the proposed
>> change it would become +2 Code Review and +2 Verified. This change
>> would mean that we will not merge patches even accidentally when it
>> has been acked by Jenkins only.
>
> Hmm, that would be different than the way other projects ( eg. vdsm,
> ovirt) use +1 verified. Wouldn't that cause confusion for people coming
> from different gerrit project ?

There are other projects which use +2 Verified too. One way or the other 
there are bound to be confusions. This can be handled by detailing the 
workflow clearly in our development-process document.

>
> What happens if the user / author / tester verifying the patch gives a
> +1 ( thinking +2 is for priviledged/maintainer ) , the workflow will
> still break.
>

It will be the maintainers' and authors' responsibility to educate such 
users and testers. Over a period of time we will reach a point where 
education would not be necessary. Till then, good documentation of this 
workflow and user education should provide us adequate mitigation.

Thanks,
Vijay