Feature #10389

Jenkins should ignore wip-prefixed branches

Added by anonym 2015-10-19 04:32:43 . Updated 2015-12-10 02:07:53 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Continuous Integration
Target version:
Tails_1.8
Start date:
2015-10-19
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
puppet-tails:feature/10389-jenkins-ignore-WIP-branches
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:
267

Description

When I work on crazy stuff that breaks a lot of stuff for a long time. I still would like to be able to push it to our repo without wasting Jenkins’ resources. Could we settle on a wip/-prefix for branch names, that means that Jenkins will ignore it completely?

Subtasks

History

#1 Updated by anonym 2015-10-19 04:34:42

  • Assignee set to bertagaz
  • QA Check set to Info Needed

What do you think, bert? To me it seems like something that has the potential to be trivial, but I wouldn’t know, so I won’t set a Target version.

#2 Updated by bertagaz 2015-10-19 07:30:59

  • Category changed from Infrastructure to Continuous Integration
  • Status changed from New to Confirmed
  • Target version set to Tails_1.8
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Dev Needed
  • Deliverable for set to 268

Agree, Jenkins shouldn’t mind about this kind of branches and we shouldn’t prevent people from sharing their WIP.

#3 Updated by bertagaz 2015-10-19 07:31:17

  • blocks #8668 added

#4 Updated by bertagaz 2015-10-19 07:32:51

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2015-10-20 03:04:18

> Agree, Jenkins shouldn’t mind about this kind of branches and we shouldn’t prevent people from sharing their WIP.

+1 :)

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2015-11-06 07:36:19

  • Deliverable for changed from 268 to 267

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-01 11:42:13

https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-dev/2015-October/009645.html has another proposal to solve this problem. Some concerns about name-based filtering (and more generally, about the idea of letting branches tell us if they should be tested) have been posted on
https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-dev/2015-December/009836.html.

Thinking about it now: I kinda prefer skipping the wip prefix, as it’s easier to (socially) enforce that we never ever merge a wip-prefixed branch, than to enforce that we never ever merge a branch that was never tested due to some setting being set in a config file on that branch. I’m still not 100% sure about this whole thing though.

I think we need a short-term solution to the problem raised by anonym on this ticket; it doesn’t need to be perfect, and IMO the prefix-based trick is good enough. That’s enough for SponsorS M3, and can probably be implemented trivially in our jobs creation script => bertagaz, please go ahead without blocking on all the crazy related ideas :)

Anything more involved, that needs more research and discussions, should go on another ticket that takes into account the aforementioned mailing list posts. I doubt we’ll reach conclusions on that by the end of the year.

#9 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-03 05:22:59

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Assignee changed from bertagaz to intrigeri
  • % Done changed from 0 to 80
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to puppet-tails:feature/10389-jenkins-ignore-WIP-branches

I’ve pushed a branch for this. You may raise issues about the regexp, I’m less skilled than you are in this area.

I’ve also pushed commit:defe7e2 in the Tails repo, to explain to the developers how and when to use this prefix.

#10 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-05 10:15:33

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to bertagaz
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

The ticket description is about ^wip/, which is what I commented about earlier on this ticket previously. Any reason to do it differently?

#11 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-07 02:11:52

  • Assignee changed from bertagaz to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA

intrigeri wrote:
> The ticket description is about ^wip/, which is what I commented about earlier on this ticket previously. Any reason to do it differently?

Well, I’ve looked at the current WIP branches in the Tails Git repo, and tried to adapt a regexp that would catch them. Most of the time people seems to have kept the topic prefix and then added `wip` somewhere in the branch name (e.g test/wip-xxxx).

But I guess you’re right, as stated in the ticket description, we should probably settle on one simple naming convention and enforce it.

I’ve pushed a fix to fit on the `^wip/` prefix, and adapted the redacted part about that in /contribute/git/ on the website.

#12 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-09 05:47:13

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to bertagaz
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Looks good, please proceed with deployment + checking it works fine :)

#13 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-10 02:07:53

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Assignee deleted (bertagaz)
  • % Done changed from 80 to 100

Deployed and checked. Found a little silly glitch that I fixed.