CI system maintainability
lbeltrame at kde.org
Thu Mar 28 15:32:34 GMT 2019
In data giovedì 28 marzo 2019 15:15:23 CET, Nate Graham ha scritto:
> In this case, it seems like the problem is that there are certain
> individuals or teams that are pushing risky, breaking changes without code
> review, and then ignoring failures in the CI. I think we might do well to
> try to answer the question of why that's happening before we create a new
> rule aimed at stopping it.
Well put. Review or not review, clearly something in the process has failed,
and I suspect "friction" rather than actual bad-faith ignorance of the CI
So, perhaps to force myself out of the bikeshedding (mea culpa) on reviews,
I'll steal Friedrich's points from another mail and put them here
- Why are the CI mails ignored / filtered? Too many, hard to parse, difficult
- What can be done to have people look at them and make sure they don't
At least for the second point, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, probably
having the committer being mailed in case of failure (GitLab does this IIRC)
might be better than just on the mailing list. The second approach is what we
use in openSUSE, where I usually don't subscribe to failure notifications
(almost 300 packages is overkill) but a bot starts pestering me with mails the
moment build failures go unfixed (granted, the time scale is different).
For the first, I'd like people more involved in the development to say their
GPG key ID: A29D259B
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the kde-core-devel