Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73793 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 80445 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2014 09:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Apr 2014 09:01:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=are.you.winning@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=are.you.winning@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.172 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: are.you.winning@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.172 mail-qc0-f172.google.com Received: from [209.85.216.172] ([209.85.216.172:35298] helo=mail-qc0-f172.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 01/41-04657-D442A535 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:01:02 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id i8so3761036qcq.3 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:00:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qSddCnyUDR9aXFGDga4r2aKpP9cE2XijPyNlY+rBDj8=; b=ShYW5ggt7qUVIvNRYA14l1YDPlNGlUXeVvBHrAgvbwK9WkNYUETAnluNmjIxRLNO+c 03DseFUwLBYRotWaUYjHiBobKu8Px4pIM4J/qFZNHubjDM7p4BZ/1Jc3tXHxqd6LgEO4 VIK0JpRMZ5fnRVPj8pbBNvEGBMbWxQ3YyDeYaOgmLmzdykERWgY9FoVIQ+Ly93QezjNx kS8YA0uzoxStlEImtJn3P1lChpcTLkxpkJYwo98RxPb098uFySbsV6jN6664ZtdDBL6r 0LLpdFbkv1VIChvlHFsV2aZsG5qS+241ZV+gQCkp8Sr6G7Gu8d4dK+psHdTcx/5hrp82 3SNQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.84.40 with SMTP id k37mr9112493qgd.65.1398416458549; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: are.you.winning@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.159.210 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:00:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535A13E1.3050106@sugarcrm.com> References: <535A13E1.3050106@sugarcrm.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:00:58 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XRZKOQXHfuWPvjwolvR1P4nyI4w Message-ID: To: Stas Malyshev Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] CI tests RFC From: daverandom@php.net (Chris Wright) Hi Stas On 25 April 2014 08:50, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to propose the CI tests RFC for the vote. Please vote at: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/travis_ci > > The vote is planned to close on May 5. If you have any questions, please > contact me. The 4th option for the "how to handle" vote doesn't seem to gel with the other 3. It pertains mostly to what's probably a minority of contributions, where the expected behaviour for an existing test is altered - i.e. a BC break (these cases should have been thoroughly examined by the community and the failing tests should have been caught before this point, but that's another story). The other 3 describe generic course of actions that could be applied to any change that breaks the CI tests. It seems to me that this option is actually a 3rd yes/no vote, namely "should the RM be responsible for inspecting the failing tests and determining whether code is wrong or the test is wrong", so we would have: Vote 1 - general acceptance (y/n) Vote 2 - should RM be responsible for looking at failed tests (y/n) Vote 3 - preferred action when tests are failing If vote 2 has a majority "yes", then the RM would see if the test needs to be updated, and then fall down to the selected option from vote 3. If vote 2 is a majority "no", then the vote 3 result would be applied in all cases, and it would be the contributor's responsibility to find the case where the test needs updating. Thoughts? Best Regards, Chris Wright