[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [jenkins-ci PATCH v2 2/2] projects: Document rationale for skipping jobs



On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 13:21 +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > In general, we strive for full coverage and build all
> > projects on all targets; however, in some cases that's
> > simply not feasible and we have to skip the corresponding
> > job. Document the rationale for each such case.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna redhat com>
> > ---
> >  projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml    | 3 +++
> >  projects/libvirt-sandbox.yaml | 3 +++
> >  projects/libvirt-tck.yaml     | 2 ++
> >  projects/libvirt.yaml         | 2 ++
> >  projects/virt-manager.yaml    | 1 +
> >  projects/virt-viewer.yaml     | 2 ++
> >  6 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml b/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml
> > index fdfb615..459bd96 100644
> > --- a/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml
> > +++ b/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml
> > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> >  - project:
> >      name: libvirt-dbus
> >      machines:
> 
> I'd appreciate an empty line above the comments, it's adds to the readability.
> 
> > +      # Debian 8 doesn't have a recent enough GLib
> >        - libvirt-centos-7
> >        - libvirt-debian-9
> >        - libvirt-fedora-27

Existing comments don't have that, and in general the job definitions
are very "vertically compact" (there are pretty much no empty lines),
I'm not sure it would fit very well. Syntax highlighting should also
make it pretty much a non-issue.

Putting the comment on the line *after* 'machines:' instead of the
one *before* it was a mistake, though, and I'll make sure to fix it.

[...]
> >  - project:
> >      name: libvirt-sandbox
> > +    # libvirt-sandbox is Linux only; among Linux platforms, CentOS 7 has
> > +    # to be excluded because it doesn't ship a version of xz suitable for
> > +    # statically linking against
> 
> Hmm, for some reason this doesn't sound "English" to me, how about:
> 
> s/statically linking against/linking statically/

Yeah, that's indeed much better :)

-- 
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]