Automatic buildbot verification
sbergman at redhat.com
Mon Oct 6 00:37:53 PDT 2014
On 10/02/2014 05:48 PM, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> 1) Developer pushes to gerrit, somehow marking the change as "I'm
> already confident with this, just pushing to gerrit so that I can do
> build verification".
> 2) Build verification happens.
> 3) If the change is "marked somehow", then it also gets automatically
> Question is what would be the best to mark these changes. Should we use
> a specially named "topic" for these changes, and reserve that name for
> this purpose? Or should the developer just +2 the change? I'm open to
However it can be implemented in gerrit, I very strongly favor a
mechanism where committing for verification is a single command line
step (that doesn't "cheat" by involving an obligatory client-side script
to make it a single command invocation).
> (As far as I see you can't trigger buildbot verification on draft changes,
> also, then it wouldn't be possible to easily see such pending changes of
> others, I guess.)
> For 2) and 3), I guess that's not really a problem, once we agree on how
> to mark these "just to be verified" changes, then a simple script can
> trigger buildbot verification for the "to be verified" changes, and at
> the same time can merge he verified ones (let's say the script would
> listen to the gerrit change stream, or so).
Sorry, I don't get what "that" is in "I guess that's not really a problem."
More information about the LibreOffice