Open Stack

Let's talk about this during the AC meeting :)

Thanks,
Sebastien
________________________________
From: Hunt, James O [james.o.hunt at intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:36 AM
To: Whaley, Graham
Cc: kata-dev
Subject: Re: [kata-dev] 答复: should github reset ack count on PR change?

Having lived with this for a while now, I've decided I'm with Xu - I don't like the current behaviour: it's confusing ("wait, didn't I ack that PR yesterday?") and information is being lost (the ack history).

I think there is value in others being able to see that a PR *was* ack'd, even if it's subsequently been updated. It's also clear to all which set of people could/should be pinged for a fresh ack as github shows the timeline of events clearly on the PR.

Cheers,

James


Le mer. 13 févr. 2019 à 10:45, Whaley, Graham <graham.whaley at intel.com<mailto:graham.whaley at intel.com>> a écrit :
Vote so far is 2 for reset, and 1 for leave-alone…

I will leave it on ‘reset on PR change’ right now, and we will see how it works out.

Thanks for the replies!

From: Xu Wang [mailto:xu at hyper.sh<mailto:xu at hyper.sh>]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 6:47 AM
To: zhangwei (CR) <zhangwei555 at huawei.com<mailto:zhangwei555 at huawei.com>>
Cc: Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos <jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com<mailto:jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com>>; Whaley, Graham <graham.whaley at intel.com<mailto:graham.whaley at intel.com>>; kata-dev <kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io<mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>>
Subject: Re: [kata-dev] 答复: should github reset ack count on PR change?

I like the pull-approve behavior (no reset) more...

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:34 AM zhangwei (CR) <zhangwei555 at huawei.com<mailto:zhangwei555 at huawei.com>> wrote:
I think we can try first with "reset" for security.
We can still change it back if we find that it makes things too complicated.

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos [mailto:jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com<mailto:jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com>]
发送时间: 2019年2月13日 4:36
收件人: Whaley, Graham <graham.whaley at intel.com<mailto:graham.whaley at intel.com>>; kata-dev <kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io<mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>>
主题: Re: [kata-dev] should github reset ack count on PR change?

I feel more secure that if the PR changes would need to re-ack.

So +1 for reset ( this could slow our merge process), I hope not a lot.
-
Carlos


-----Original Message-----
From: Whaley, Graham [mailto:graham.whaley at intel.com<mailto:graham.whaley at intel.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:59 AM
To: kata-dev <kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io<mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>>
Subject: [kata-dev] should github reset ack count on PR change?

Hi kata-devs,
 I'd like to cast a shout out for opinions on a bit of github PR workflow here....
 With the move from pullapprove to github to do the ack/nack counting, I had to make a decision on one of the github setup options.
 There is a tickbox that basically says 'if the PR changes, drop all existing acks and reset to 0'.
 We had a mixture of that being on/off across the repos. I set it to 'on' for them all, as notionally that seems like the right thing to do for a 'perfect workflow' (that is - if somebody changed the PR, how can you know your ack still applies etc. etc.).

But, that is not how we had pullapprove working. Acks were sticky in pullapprove.
And, tbh, most of the time the PRs are being updated to fix little things, and existing acks are mostly (99% of the time) OK to stick...

What do we think - do we want acks sticky or not... I'm fairly OK either way, and will go setup/check github once we make a decision.

Graham


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


_______________________________________________
kata-dev mailing list
kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io<mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>
http://lists.katacontainers.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kata-dev
_______________________________________________
kata-dev mailing list
kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io<mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>
http://lists.katacontainers.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kata-dev
_______________________________________________
kata-dev mailing list
kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io<mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>
http://lists.katacontainers.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kata-dev


--
--

Xu Wang
CTO & Cofounder, Hyper
github/twitter/wechat: @gnawux
http://hyper.sh<http://hyper.sh/>

Hyper_: Make VM run like container

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

_______________________________________________
kata-dev mailing list
kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io<mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>
http://lists.katacontainers.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kata-dev


--
James
---
https://katacontainers.io/ | https://github.com/kata-containers<https://github.com/clearcontainers>
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.katacontainers.io/pipermail/kata-dev/attachments/20190219/5a78d6e4/attachment.html>