<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/26/2012 09:32 PM, Anand Avati
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAFboF2yuT_pD_+6Z-9haYGAt3wkQ+WV39sftuK+pBDPDmHRO=g@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite"><br>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Vijay
        Bellur <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:vbellur@redhat.com" target="_blank">vbellur@redhat.com</a>&gt;</span>
        wrote:<br>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
          <div class="HOEnZb">
            <div class="h5">On 09/26/2012 02:52 PM, Deepak C Shetty
              wrote:<br>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                On 09/26/2012 11:41 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:<br>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                  .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                  On 09/26/2012 10:34 AM, Deepak C Shetty wrote:<br>
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                    .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                    On 09/25/2012 04:13 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:<br>
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                      .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                      Hi All,<br>
                      <br>
                      We intend to bring the following change in our
                      gerrit based workflow:<br>
                      <br>
                      - Introduce +2 and -2 for Verified in Gerrit<br>
                      - +2 for Verified to be necessary for merging a
                      patch<br>
                      <br>
                      The intent of this proposed change is to get
                      additional test coverage<br>
                      and reduce the number of regressions that can
                      sneak by. Jenkins would<br>
                      continue to provide +1s for all submitted changes
                      that pass basic<br>
                      smoke tests. An additional +2 would be necessary
                      from somebody who<br>
                      tests the patch. Providing a +2 for Verified would
                      be semantically<br>
                      similar to adding a Tested-by: tag.<br>
                    </blockquote>
                    I have a basic doubt here.. How is +2 verified
                    different than +1<br>
                    verified, which is currently provided by either the
                    author or someone<br>
                    else or both. I assume that the Jenkins +1 verified
                    is not the only<br>
                    thing that is seen by the maintainer before merging
                    the patch, he/she<br>
                    should be looking at +1 verified from the author or
                    someother person and<br>
                    take the decision accordingly during merge.<br>
                    <br>
                  </blockquote>
                  <br>
                  That is not the work flow model we follow currently.
                  Authors and<br>
                  testers do not provide +1 verified usually and patches
                  do get accepted<br>
                  with +1 verified from Jenkins. The necessary condition
                  today for<br>
                  accepting a patch is +2 Code Review and +1 Verified.
                  With the proposed<br>
                  change it would become +2 Code Review and +2 Verified.
                  This change<br>
                  would mean that we will not merge patches even
                  accidentally when it<br>
                  has been acked by Jenkins only.<br>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
                Hmm, that would be different than the way other projects
                ( eg. vdsm,<br>
                ovirt) use +1 verified. Wouldn't that cause confusion
                for people coming<br>
                from different gerrit project ?<br>
              </blockquote>
              <br>
            </div>
          </div>
          There are other projects which use +2 Verified too. One way or
          the other there are bound to be confusions. This can be
          handled by detailing the workflow clearly in our
          development-process document.
          <div class="im"><br>
            <br>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <br>
              What happens if the user / author / tester verifying the
              patch gives a<br>
              +1 ( thinking +2 is for priviledged/maintainer ) , the
              workflow will<br>
              still break.<br>
              <br>
            </blockquote>
            <br>
          </div>
          It will be the maintainers' and authors' responsibility to
          educate such users and testers. Over a period of time we will
          reach a point where education would not be necessary. Till
          then, good documentation of this workflow and user education
          should provide us adequate mitigation.<br>
          <br>
        </blockquote>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Another less disruptive approach is to reconfigure jenkins
          to give -1 verified on test failure and 0 verified on success
          (but still make a "passed" comment). The +1 verified should
          come outside of jenkins.</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <tt>I think thats a better approach and second that. Another soln
      would be for gerrit to have "Build" section liek we have Code
      Review and Verifed sectoin.. and jenkins giving a +1/-1 for the
      Build success/Failure, but 'guess changing gerrit would be long
      term ?</tt><br>
  </body>
</html>