We have had some main branch PRs tagged with core + needs-qa +
wip-yuri-testing just sit there for a while (e.g. [1], [2]). In the
CLT meeting it became clear that there is some confusion about the
process: for example, Yuri doesn't pick up main branch PRs on his own
and instead expects a nod from someone on the RADOS team. This is
because unlike with release branch PRs, the relative priority isn't
always clear.
On the other hand, not all PRs that get tagged with core by the labeler
necessarily need a RADOS run. For example, src/mon/MDSMonitor.cc would
probably be better covered by the CephFS suite.
What are the expectations from the RADOS team here? Is core +
needs-qa combination sufficient or something else is required?
Since RADOS is kind of a catch-all suite, is there anyone sweeping
PRs tagged with needs-qa but not core (e.g. common or build/ops) for
including in RADOS runs? Such PRs tend to linger for months (e.g.
[3], [4]). Perhaps we need to introduce a new needs-rados-qa label
specifically for such cases? If used on PRs that are anyway tagged
with core it would make a request more explicit.
Hello,
We have had some main branch PRs tagged with core + needs-qa +
wip-yuri-testing just sit there for a while (e.g. [1], [2]). In the
CLT meeting it became clear that there is some confusion about the
process: for example, Yuri doesn't pick up main branch PRs on his own
and instead expects a nod from someone on the RADOS team. This is
because unlike with release branch PRs, the relative priority isn't
always clear.
On the other hand, not all PRs that get tagged with core by the labeler
necessarily need a RADOS run. For example, src/mon/MDSMonitor.cc would
probably be better covered by the CephFS suite.
Questions:
- What are the expectations from the RADOS team here? Is core +
needs-qa combination sufficient or something else is required?
- Since RADOS is kind of a catch-all suite, is there anyone sweeping
PRs tagged with needs-qa but not core (e.g. common or build/ops) for
including in RADOS runs? Such PRs tend to linger for months (e.g.
[3], [4]). Perhaps we need to introduce a new needs-rados-qa label
specifically for such cases? If used on PRs that are anyway tagged
with core it would make a request more explicit.
[1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/50503
[2] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/52124
[3] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/48672
[4] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/50301
Thanks,
Ilya
Laura Flores
She/Her/Hers
Software Engineer, Ceph Storage
Chicago, IL
lflores@ibm.com | lflores@redhat.com
M: +17087388804
| |