<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 1:56 PM Atin Mukherjee <<a href="mailto:amukherj@redhat.com">amukherj@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:04, Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan <<a href="mailto:atumball@redhat.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">atumball@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Few bullet points:</div><div><br></div><div>* Let smoke job sequentially for below, and if successful, in parallel for others.</div><div> - Sequential:</div><div> -- clang-format check</div><div> -- compare-bugzilla-version-git-branch</div><div> -- bugzilla-post</div><div> -- comment-on-issue</div><div> -- fedora-smoke (mainly don't want warning).</div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">+1</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div> - Parallel</div><div> -- all devrpm jobs</div><div> -- 32bit smoke</div><div> -- freebsd-smoke</div><div> -- smoke</div><div> -- strfmt_errors</div><div> -- python-lint, and shellcheck.</div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I’m sure there must be a reason but would like to know that why do they need to be parallel? Can’t we have them sequentially to have similar benefits of the resource utilisation like above? Or are all these individual jobs are time consuming such that having them sequentially will lead the overall smoke job to consume much longer?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div><br></div><div><div>* Remove Verified flag. No point in one more extra button which users need to click, anyways CentOS regression is considered as 'Verification'.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">The requirement of verified flag by patch owner for regression to run was added because the number of Jenkins machines we had were few and patches being uploaded were many. </span><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div><div>* In a normal flow, let CentOS regression which is running after 'Verified' vote, be triggered on first 'successful' +1 reviewed vote.</div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As I believe some reviewers/maintainers (including me) would like to see the regression vote to put a +1/+2 in most of the patches until and unless they are straight forward ones. So although with this you’re reducing the burden of one extra click from the patch owner, but on the other way you’re introducing the same burden on the reviewers who would like to check the regression vote. IMHO, I don’t see much benefits in implementing this.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Agree with Atin here. Burden should be on machines before people. Reviewers prefer to look at patches that have passed regression. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In github heketi, we have configured regression to run on all patches that are submitted by heketi developer group. If such configuration is possible in gerrit+Jenkins, we should definitely do it that way. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For patches that are submitted by someone outside of the developer group, a maintainer should verify that the patch doesn't do anything harmful and mark the regression to run. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Talur </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div></div><div><br></div><div>* For those patches which got pushed to system to just 'validate' behavior, to run sample tests, WIP patches, continue to support 'recheck centos' comment message, so we can run without any vote. Let it not be the norm.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>With this, I see that we can reduce smoke failures utilize 90% less resources for a patch which would fail smoke anyways. (ie, 95% of the smoke failures would be caught in first 10% of the resource, and time).</div><div><br></div><div>Also we can reduce number of regression running, as review is mandatory to run regression.</div><div><br></div><div>These are just suggestions, happy to discuss more on these.</div><div><br></div><div>-Amar</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br class="m_1515296300829102065m_-4650518350321502754gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-infra mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-infra@gluster.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Gluster-infra@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra</a></blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="m_1515296300829102065gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">- Atin (atinm)</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-infra mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-infra@gluster.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Gluster-infra@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra</a></blockquote></div></div></div>