The reason I wanted a gerrit hook is to avoid putting a -1 until VDSM is clean of errors. It's supposed to be a transitional state.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Itamar Heim" iheim@redhat.com To: "Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden" ewoud@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl Cc: vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 5:52:13 AM Subject: Re: [vdsm] PEP8 in VDSM code
On 03/26/2012 11:26 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:57:24AM -0400, Ayal Baron wrote:
I'd rather avoid gerrit hooks if possible to use a jenkins job to validate this to keep the gerrit deployment as simple to maintain/upgrade as possible.
But that's the wrong place to be doing it. Jenkins periodically polls for changes and then runs a job and posts the results somewhere (who would get the email?)
Here the committer would immediately know that there is a problem with the patch and reviewers also immediately know not to accept it.
I think what Itamar is getting at is that from gerrit you can trigger jenkins jobs which give a -1 if it fails. If jenkins checks for pep8 you've solved the feedback issue without creating custom a gerrit hook. It will also be more scalable since you can add pyflakes / pylint / ... in the same check.
true. per ayal's question - patch owner and reviewers will get the email, like any other review. we need to keep the gerrit as simple as possible wrt maintenance. _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel