Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
From: Bálint Réczey <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 17:43:16 +0100
Hi Marc,

2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]>:
> Hash: SHA256
> On 06/22/2013 03:47 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]>:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>> On 06/20/2013 04:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 06/20/2013 02:17 PM, Gerald Combs wrote:
>>>>>> Advantates: - I'm not sure that an in-house equivalent (e.g.
>>>>>> Gerrit plus a private repository) would be better than what Github
>>>>>> offers.
>>>>> Yes, Gerrit is better than github:
>>>> Presumably you mean "Gerrit plus a private repository is better than
>>>> github", as Gerrit, as far as I can tell, is just software that works
>>>> with a Git repository.
>>> Yes, although managing repositories being what Gerrit do, Gerrit without
>>> a least one repository would be a very boring application.
>> :-)
>> I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to
>> the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please
>> check it and share your opinion.
> "Code is building and tests are passing on all platforms. (Tests automatically
> start when at least one Core Developer gives +1 or +2 to prevent overloading
> or cracking the build servers.)"
> Why do not build and test all patchsets submitted?  Is that a limitation of
> the build servers?  Having Jenkins automatically verify your patchset is IMO
> one of the nice feature of Gerrit, and it will lower the workload of core devs
> if building and testing are done before they start looking at the patchset.
Build can be triggered by patchset submissin, too, but it would require more
build server resources. Usually not the first version of the changeset
will be accepted
especially from new contributors and this means more builds.
Note that Core Developers would not have to wait since they can give
+1 for their own

The other reason behind requiring a +1 from someone we trust is that
otherwise it would
be easy to prepare a changeset which does unspeakable things to the
build servers which we don't want to happen.
Without requiring +1 we would have to prepare build systems to cope
with malicious commits.

I would be fine with both options, but in the first proposal I
preferred to avoid having to harden the build systems.