On (23/03/15 17:53), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:03:03PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 03/23/2015 03:59 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >On (23/03/15 14:47), Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 03/23/2015 02:43 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>>On (23/03/15 14:18), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:07:12PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>>>>ehlo,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>simple patch is attached.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>LS
> >>>>Hm, the default CI test doesn't run distcheck?
> >>>>
> >>>>I admit I haven't ran distcheck myself, but was relying on the CI
link
> >>>>Pavel sent..
> >>>That's the reason why I do not send link to CI result as an author of
the
> >>>patch.
> >>>
> >>>In my opinion it's reviewer's task.
> >>>
> >>>LS
> >>What would be different if Jakub ran CI himself?
> >>
> >If I had reviewd your patch i would have sent links to CI result which
> >run all test (including distcheck and mock build)
>
> I tend to agree with Pavel here: trusting developer's CI links might save us
> some time. It doesn't replace the patch-specific testing, where necessary, of
> course.
The best would be if there was some tool that would grab the patches
automagically and run the CI tests..
If we want to safe a time then developers should run CI script locally
with enabled all tests.
@see file contrib/ci/README.md in sssd git.
It was Nikolai's intention but it seems that nobody use it.
Pavel sent 3 links to CI result with each patch set,
which is IMO wasting of resources. That's the reason why reviewer
should sent link to CI result with final ACK.
Developer should run CI script locally. It would catch most issues.
The platform specific fails can be easily fixed if CI script passed
on local machine.
LS