sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 10:10:39 UTC 2016
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Kaushal M <kshlmster at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd brought up Zuul a long while back. The opinion then was that,
> while a gatekeeper is nice, we didn't want to maintain anymore infra
> over what we had at the time. We tried to make Jenkins itself do the
> work, which hasn't succeeded as well as we hoped.
> With you being dedicated to maintain the infra, this will be a nice
> time to revisit/investigate Zuul again.
I'd propose that concerns of maintenance/administration be separated
from the value accrued by this move. This approach worked out well
during the JJB task.
So, a question for Nigel - when you propose Zuul - what is the flow
and benefits that you see being available to the project? Have you
previously worked with Zuul or, can cite situations where adoption of
Zuul has helped?
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Nigel Babu <nigelb at redhat.com> wrote:
>> We've had master breaking twice in this week because we of when we run
>> regressions and how we merge. I think it's time we officially thought of moving
>> regressions as a gate controlld by Zuul. And Zuul will do the merge onto
>> the correct branch.
>> This is me throwing the idea about to hear any negative thoughts, before I do
>> further investigation. What does everyone think about this?
>> Note: I've purposefully not CC'd gluster-devel here because I'd rather go to
>> the full developer team with a proper plan.
More information about the Gluster-infra