[Gluster-Maintainers] Lock down period merge process
Pranith Kumar Karampuri
pkarampu at redhat.com
Wed Oct 3 09:22:41 UTC 2018
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:35 PM Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 18:27, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu at redhat.com>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:27 PM Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com>
>>> tests/bugs/<component Y>/xxx.t failing can’t always mean there’s a bug
>>> in component Y.
>> I agree.
>>> It could be anywhere till we root cause the problem.
>> Some one needs to step in to find out what the root cause is. I agree
>> that for a component like glusterd bugs in other components can easily lead
>> to failures. How do we make sure that someone takes a look at it?
>>> Now does this mean we block commit rights for component Y till we have
>>> the root cause?
>> It was a way of making it someone's priority. If you have another way to
>> make it someone's priority that is better than this, please suggest and we
>> can have a discussion around it and agree on it :-).
> This is what I can think of:
> 1. Component peers/maintainers take a first triage of the test failure. Do
> the initial debugging and (a) point to the component which needs further
> debugging or (b) seek for help at gluster-devel ML for additional insight
> for identifying the problem and narrowing down to a component.
2. If it’s (1 a) then we already know the component and the owner. If it’s
> (2 b) at this juncture, it’s all maintainers responsibility to ensure the
> email is well understood and based on the available details the ownership
> is picked up by respective maintainers. It might be also needed that
> multiple maintainers might have to be involved and this is why I focus on
> this as a group effort than individual one.
I like this approach. One question here regarding (1a), do you guys think
'recheck centos' workflow is preventing folks from posting it on
gluster-devel? I understand there is fstat for people to get the data about
what are the tests that are failing a lot. But considering it didn't lead
to the behavior where the failures are addressed on timely basis should we
change it? I generally see more activity on gluster-devel/users and github
in general from community when issues are posted. What do you guys think?
>>> That doesn’t make much sense right? This is one of the reasons in such
>>> case we need to work as a group, figure out the problem and fix it, till
>>> then locking down the entire repo for further commits look a better option
>> Let us dig deeper into what happens when we work as a group, in general
>> it will be one person who will take the lead and get help. Is there a way
>> to find that person without locking down whole master? If there is, we may
>> never have to get to a place where we lock down master completely. We may
>> not even have to lock down components. Suggestions are welcome.
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 14:04, Nigel Babu <nigelb at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> We know maintainers of the components which are leading to repeated
>>>>> failures in that component and we just need to do the same thing we did to
>>>>> remove commit access for the maintainer of the component instead of all of
>>>>> the people. So in that sense it is not good faith and can be enforced.
>>>> Pranith, I believe the difference of opinion is because you're looking
>>>> at this problem in terms of "who" rather than "what". We do not care about
>>>> *who* broke master. Removing commit access from a component owner doesn't
>>>> stop someone else from landing a patch will create a failure in the same
>>>> component or even a different component. We cannot stop patches from
>>>> landing because it touches a specific component. And even if we could, our
>>>> components are not entirely independent of each other. There could still be
>>>> failures. This is a common scenario and it happened the last time we had to
>>>> close master. Let me further re-emphasize our goals:
>>>> * When master is broken, every team member's energy needs to be focused
>>>> on getting master to green. Who broke the build isn't a concern as much as
>>>> *the build is broken*. This is not a situation to punish specific people.
>>>> * If we allow other commits to land, we run the risk of someone else
>>>> breaking master with a different patch. Now we have two failures to debug
>>>> and fix.
>>>> maintainers mailing list
>>>> maintainers at gluster.org
>>> - Atin (atinm)
> - Atin (atinm)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the maintainers