<p dir="ltr"><br>
On 15 Jun 2015 19:23, "Kaushal M" <<a href="mailto:kshlmster@gmail.com">kshlmster@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > I like this idea. One tweak I'd make is to introduce the idea of<br>
> > Verified+1 for smoke and Verified+2 for regressions. Why? Because it<br>
> > seems like a lot of people won't even review a patch until they can<br>
> > see that it has been sanity-checked. If we formally require review<br>
> > before verification, and informally need verification before review,<br>
> > we're stuck.<br>
><br>
> I should have made this clearer in the steps I listed.<br>
> Under the 2nd step (I should have numbered as well), I've mentioned<br>
> that Zuul will report back the status of smoke/pre-review tests. This<br>
> is the Verified+1. Though I was thinking of using different flags, we<br>
> can use Verified it self to serve both pre and post review checks.<br>
I would like to see two different flags, one for smoke and other for regression. Off late, we have seen cases where votes get overridden. <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org">Gluster-devel@gluster.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br>
</p>