<div dir="ltr"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:50 PM Shyam Ranganathan <<a href="mailto:srangana@redhat.com">srangana@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 10/03/2018 11:16 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:<br>
> Once we have distributed tests running, such that overall regression<br>
> time is reduced, we can possibly tackle removing retries for tests, and<br>
> then getting to a more stringent recheck process/tooling. The reason<br>
> being, we now run to completion and that takes quite a bit of time, so<br>
> at this juncture removing retry is not practical, but we should get<br>
> there (soon?).<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I agree with you about removing retry. I didn't understand why recheck<br>
> nudging developers has to be post-poned till distributed regression<br>
> tests comes into picture. My thinking is that it is more important to<br>
> have it when tests take longer.<br>
<br>
Above is only retry specific, not recheck specific, as in "we can<br>
possibly tackle removing retries for tests"<br>
<br>
But also reiterating this is orthogonal to the lock down needs discussed<br>
here.<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"></div><div>As per my understanding the reason why lock down is happening because no one makes any noise about the failures that they are facing as and when it happens, and it doesn't get conveyed on gluster-devel. So is there any reason why you think it is orthogonal considering it is contributing directly to the problem that we are discussing on this thread?<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Pranith<br></div></div></div></div>