[Gluster-infra] New workflow proposal for glusterfs repo

Raghavendra Talur rtalur at redhat.com
Wed Jun 12 18:28:37 UTC 2019

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 1:56 PM Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:04, Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan <
> atumball at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Few bullet points:
>> * Let smoke job sequentially for below, and if successful, in parallel
>> for others.
>>   - Sequential:
>>   -- clang-format check
>>   -- compare-bugzilla-version-git-branch
>>   -- bugzilla-post
>>   -- comment-on-issue
>>   -- fedora-smoke (mainly don't want warning).
> +1
>   - Parallel
>>    -- all devrpm jobs
>>    -- 32bit smoke
>>    -- freebsd-smoke
>>    -- smoke
>>    -- strfmt_errors
>>    -- python-lint, and shellcheck.
> 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?
>> * Remove Verified flag. No point in one more extra button which users
>> need to click, anyways CentOS regression is considered as 'Verification'.
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.

>> * In a normal flow, let CentOS regression which is running after
>> 'Verified' vote, be triggered on first 'successful' +1 reviewed vote.
> 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.

Agree with Atin here. Burden should be on machines before people. Reviewers
prefer to look at patches that have passed regression.

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.

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.


>> * 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.
>> 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).
>> Also we can reduce number of regression running, as review is mandatory
>> to run regression.
>> These are just suggestions, happy to discuss more on these.
>> -Amar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-infra mailing list
>> Gluster-infra at gluster.org
>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra
> --
> - Atin (atinm)
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-infra mailing list
> Gluster-infra at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-infra/attachments/20190612/93d9b210/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gluster-infra mailing list