On 07/09/2013 11:59 AM, Dennis Hübner
wrote:
A lot of failed builds were caused by missing
(suddenly deleted/disappeared) artifacts not by incoming model
changes.
So autovalidation by Jenkins will probably prevent
maintainers to submit a patch which fixes, but depends on the
broken master state.
So IMHO gerrit would not eliminate the problem in the
whole, but can probably make the maintenance not that easy
That's right, but the value of code review is mainly in educating
(mid-term/long-term benefit). Currently, it seems like (some) people
push stuff to aggregator without understanding that this needs to be
stable content. Having a code review phase saying: "I'm ok to merge
this in aggregator if you confirm the submission conforms to
Simultaneous Release requirements and that it is a stable URL that
won't disappear" would probably help, on medium to long term, to
avoid bad contributions to aggregator and then to make build more
stable.
When I was a younger contributor to Eclipse, i did contribute some
stuff to the release train which broke some builds. It happened
because I did not understand enough the requirements and workflow of
the aggregation. I guess it's the case for some other contributors.
Code review would have prevented me from breaking build.
Time to review such a patch: a few minutes.
Time to notice a build is broken + to route error to the right
contributor + to disable the contribution + to rebuild: a few hours.
|