Merge ~falcojr/curtin:update-manager-in-docs into curtin:master
- Git
- lp:~falcojr/curtin
- update-manager-in-docs
- Merge into master
Status: | Merged |
---|---|
Approved by: | Paride Legovini |
Approved revision: | ae20073ecc964eb08e96ac625b441065d4ae56ad |
Merge reported by: | Server Team CI bot |
Merged at revision: | not available |
Proposed branch: | ~falcojr/curtin:update-manager-in-docs |
Merge into: | curtin:master |
Diff against target: |
17 lines (+2/-2) 1 file modified
HACKING.rst (+2/-2) |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
Server Team CI bot | continuous-integration | Approve | |
Chad Smith | Approve | ||
Ryan Harper (community) | Needs Fixing | ||
Review via email: mp+383601@code.launchpad.net |
Commit message
Replace references to old team manager with new team manager
Description of the change
Replace references to old team manager with new team manager
James Falcon (falcojr) wrote : | # |
What is the purpose of the "Set Commit Message" box? Is it the text for a merge commit? If my other commits live on their own, what text would we want for an additional commit? I don't want them squashed.
As far as commit format, I saw that, but there's no LP, and no additional explanation needed for these commits, right? I would normally add more info, but these don't need any more explanation than the one-liners they are, correct?
Ryan Harper (raharper) wrote : | # |
We do squash merge commits (for historic reasons that have to do with bazaar; which did squash merges, but kept the original commit history "hidden"). So the box is what's going into the commit history for this item.
w.r.t the format, yeah, no LP and single line commit is ok, just needs to be under 76 chars
Chad Smith (chad.smith) wrote : | # |
James, thanks for the patch/fix. I think if you can drop your commit 5a0c88c and propose that as a separate branch with an explanation of the intent there, it'd be easier to digest since we try to avoid placing unrelated changes into a squashed commit.
James Falcon (falcojr) wrote : | # |
Sure. Makes sense. Didn't really all branches got squashed when I pushed this.
Chad Smith (chad.smith) wrote : | # |
Thanks for that James! LGTM!
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Ryan Harper (raharper) wrote : | # |
py3-flake8 runtests: commands[0] | /jenkins/
curtin/
curtin/
curtin/
curtin/
tests/unittests
tests/unittests
tests/vmtests/
tests/vmtests/
is what autoland is showing.
@Chad we need to manually queue James's branch in CI, or add him to the correct lp group to have automatic CI.
I cannot reproduce the tox failure locally so something is different for autolander tox =(
Paride Legovini (paride) wrote : | # |
The autoland job just runs a plain 'tox' on the source tree [1], and I can reproduce that problem locally on my Groovy system.
It's annoying when the autolander job runs in this kind of loop. One easy way to prevent it would be to have the autolander job to set the MP back to "Needs review" on failure. What do you think?
It would be nice to have it set the MP back to "Needs review" after e.g. 3 failures. I was thinking of doing this using the Jenkins "unstable" state, but this is not possible as the status of job is not per-MP.
[1] https:/
Ryan Harper (raharper) wrote : | # |
> The autoland job just runs a plain 'tox' on the source tree [1], and I
> can reproduce that problem locally on my Groovy system.
Looks like tox.ini needs a tip-flake8 so we can reproduce this elsewhere.
>
> It's annoying when the autolander job runs in this kind of loop. One
> easy way to prevent it would be to have the autolander job to set the
> MP back to "Needs review" on failure. What do you think?
+1 on moving back to needs review.
> It would be nice to have it set the MP back to "Needs review" after e.g. 3
> failures. I was thinking of doing this using the Jenkins "unstable" state, but
> this is not possible as the status of job is not per-MP.
>
> [1] https:/
So can it be done in our jobs or not?
Ryan Harper (raharper) wrote : | # |
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:ae20073ecc9
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Click here to trigger a rebuild:
https:/
Chad Smith (chad.smith) wrote : | # |
I think this should land now that paride's branch is approved (once it merges)
https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:ae20073ecc9
https:/
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
FAILURE: https:/
Click here to trigger a rebuild:
https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) : | # |
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
Approved revid is not set in launchpad. This is most likely a launchpad issue and re-approve should fix it. There is also a chance (although a very small one) this is a permission problem of the ps-jenkins bot
https:/
Executed test runs:
SUCCESS: https:/
SUCCESS: https:/
SUCCESS: https:/
SUCCESS: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) wrote : | # |
Autolanding: FAILED
More details in the following jenkins job:
https:/
Executed test runs:
ABORTED: https:/
ABORTED: https:/
ABORTED: https:/
ABORTED: https:/
Server Team CI bot (server-team-bot) : | # |
Preview Diff
1 | diff --git a/HACKING.rst b/HACKING.rst |
2 | index 58adf76..f2b618d 100644 |
3 | --- a/HACKING.rst |
4 | +++ b/HACKING.rst |
5 | @@ -15,11 +15,11 @@ Do these things once |
6 | be listed in the `contributor-agreement-canonical`_ group. Unfortunately |
7 | there is no easy way to check if an organization or company you are doing |
8 | work for has signed. If you are unsure or have questions, email |
9 | - `Josh Powers <mailto:josh.powers@canonical.com>` or ping powersj in |
10 | + `Rick Harding <mailto:rick.harding@canonical.com>` or ping rick_h in |
11 | ``#curtin`` channel via Freenode IRC. |
12 | |
13 | When prompted for 'Project contact' or 'Canonical Project Manager' enter |
14 | - 'Josh Powers'. |
15 | + 'Rick Harding'. |
16 | |
17 | * Configure git with your email and name for commit messages. |
18 |
Thanks for the Merge Proposal (MP). I failed to bring up how we land changes, so this is my fault.
1) Please move your Description into the 'Set Commit Message' box; the autolander here won't use the description and complains when it's set at landing time.
2) The format for the commit message is:
oneliner
Longer description here with details on what
changed. Including addition changes in the merge
- I also updated the .gitignore file
LP: #NNNNNNN if this was fixing a bug