[wildfly-dev] Policies for merging PRs on master

[Scott Marlow]

It would be great if we could have a branch that includes all of the 
commits that we are considering to merge at a particular time of day, 
such that we would run the TCK against that branch, only once a day.  If 
one of the changes cause a TCK failure, none of them get merged 
(investigation follows that to determine which change caused the 
failure(s)), if the test succeeds, we can then merge that batch of 
changes into WildFly master.

We likely would want to avoid running the testing, on days when we 
haven't merged any changes to the WF testing branching.

Would that approach help how we merge PRs on master?

Scott

On 12/04/2017 09:33 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Brian Stansberry 
> <brian.stansberry at redhat.com <mailto:brian.stansberry at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Great. :)
> 
>     One thing I think we need to do is figure out how to get custom TCK
>     runs for PR branches. The TCK is a big part of our test coverage,
>     and one way to not "use master as a test bed" is to get a check of a
>     branch on the TCK before we merge it.
> 
>     I know we've gotten TCK runs of ad-hoc branches before, so by
>     "figure out" I mean work out how to make that not overly painful,
>     come to some sort of consensus on when it's worthwhile, etc.
> 
> 
> I think if we were going to do this it should probably be something 
> reviewers can ask for on specific PR. The TCK uses a *lot* more 
> resources than a standard CI run, so we need to make sure we limit it to 
> cases where it is required.
> 
> Stuart
> 
> 
>     On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Alessio Soldano
>     <asoldano at redhat.com <mailto:asoldano at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>         There you go... PR updated to consume the same api jar now
>         released as final.
> 
>         Cheers
>         Alessio
> 
>         On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Lloyd
>         <david.lloyd at redhat.com <mailto:david.lloyd at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>             On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Alessio Soldano
>             <asoldano at redhat.com <mailto:asoldano at redhat.com>> wrote:
>             > As suggested by Brian, I'd like to draw attention to the discussion on
>             > https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/10604
>             <https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/10604> .
>             > The PR is an upgrade of the webservices stack, including JBossWS, Apache
>             > CXF, JAXB-RI and JAXB API. In particular, the JAXB upgrade is for EE8 and
>             > better JDK 9 compatibility.
>             > Now, due to the upgrade of the JAXB API spec jar, the PR is essentially
>             > stalled since 20 days; the new spec is released as an alpha (as it's been
>             > tested within JBossWS only) and that does not satisfy a rule that requires
>             > any artifact being pulled to be Final.
>             > We're talking about a spec jar, we could simply re-tag that as Final,
>             > chances are we won't need changes any time soon there anyway, but as Tomaz
>             > pointed out, in principle that would be dishonest.
> 
>             My opinion is that you should go ahead and make a .Final
>             tag.  In the
>             (unlikely?) event that the spec has to be modified for some
>             reason, I
>             think you could make a 1.0.1.Final tag and call it a "bug fix".
> 
>             The alternative is to simply wait.  I don't think there is
>             any middle position.
> 
>             > While I see the point in requiring that only sufficiently stable upgrades
>             > are applied to the codebase, I'm wondering whether, maybe, we're going a bit
>             > too far with the rules. Brian wrote on this topic: "how to determine that
>             > something is good enough to go in without using master as a test bed" ?
> 
>             I don't think we are; I agree with the policy as it stands. 
>             If you
>             look at it in terms of being able to release at any time,
>             then it
>             follows that everything _must_ be stable.
> 
>             --
>             - DML
> 
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         wildfly-dev mailing list
>         wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>         https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>         <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Brian Stansberry
>     Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
>     Red Hat
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     wildfly-dev mailing list
>     wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>     <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>