[Pulp-dev] [noissue] considered harmful
ipanova at redhat.com
Wed Nov 6 19:02:57 UTC 2019
+1 to keep [noissue] and reviewer keeps an eye whether an opened issue is
Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
"Do not go where the path may lead,
go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:51 PM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
> Agreed, I would also rather keep [noissue]. That is a good example of
> when it is useful. We can and should pay more attention to when it's being
> used in the PR review process, though.
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:26 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
>> I'm leaning towards keeping [noissue] and have it a responsibility of PR
>> reviewer/merger to evaluate if it's a proper use or an issue is needed.
>> Alternatively, can we block a merge of PR if there is no issue? at github
>> level, not in travis? so tests run but you can only merge it "using your
>> admin privileges" by pressing a very red button :)
>> One good case for noissue is all the release PRs I think. So if we let
>> tests run regardless of the issue specified in the commit and only block
>> merge, it's probably fine to press the red button for the release PRs only.
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:55 PM Matthias Dellweg <dellweg at atix.de> wrote:
>>> Being a regular user of noissue, i think it is ok to keep it, if the
>>> reviewer can tell the contributer at some time that the change is
>>> effecting something worth noting in the changelog. Sometimes, what
>>> starts as a very small change evolves into something bigger.
>>> Sometimes you might even want to show some code without knowing whether
>>> there is an issue at all. Removing this loophole would prevent those
>>> code paths from ever running in the ci.
>>> I'd vote for not removing the [noissue] functionality, but instead keep
>>> an open eye on it's usage, and in case request that a ticket be opened.
>>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:52:14 -0500
>>> David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > When we added commit validation to our CI, we created a loophole that
>>> > would allow small changes like typo fixes to not have a redmine issue
>>> > or changelog entry. By having '[noissue]' in the commit message,
>>> > users could bypass our commit requirements. However, this loophole is
>>> > not being used as intended--it's being used for all sorts of changes
>>> > from new features to bug fixes.
>>> > This is going to be a major problem for users and plugin writers when
>>> > we release 3.0 and they start to upgrade from release to release.
>>> > These [noissue] changes won't being reflected in our changelog which
>>> > invalidates the motivation behind having a changelog.
>>> > My first inkling is to remove the '[noissue]' functionality. Other
>>> > projects like Katello and foreman already do this. If you don't want
>>> > your change reflected in the changelog, you should be creating .misc
>>> > entries for these changes in the CHANGES folder. The downside to this
>>> > is every change will require a changelog and issue, and this creates
>>> > extra steps for devs and contributors.
>>> > Another option is to make our check smarter by incorporating some
>>> > other condition(s) or metric(s). For example, perhaps we could allow
>>> > [noissue] changes only to certain directories like our tests
>>> > directory. The problem here is getting the parameters right. What
>>> > sorts of changes changes should we allow to be [noissue] ones? I've
>>> > thought about this a bit and couldn't think of a good set of criteria.
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> > David
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev