Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mark trilead api as test (even if we should not need this) #91

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

olamy
Copy link
Member

@olamy olamy commented Mar 28, 2024

see jenkinsci/bom#3049

Signed-off-by: Olivier Lamy olamy@apache.org

Testing done

Submitter checklist

Signed-off-by: Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org>
@olamy olamy marked this pull request as ready for review March 28, 2024 02:02
@olamy olamy requested a review from a team as a code owner March 28, 2024 02:02
@olamy olamy changed the title mark trilead api as test mark trilead api as test (even if we should not need this see https://github.com/jenkinsci/bom/pull/3049) Mar 28, 2024
@olamy olamy changed the title mark trilead api as test (even if we should not need this see https://github.com/jenkinsci/bom/pull/3049) mark trilead api as test (even if we should not need this) Mar 28, 2024
@jtnord
Copy link
Member

jtnord commented Mar 28, 2024

@jglick
Copy link
Member

jglick commented Mar 28, 2024

I do not follow all the nuances here, but as a procedural request: if it is not clear in advance whether some proposed plugin change will fix something in PCT, or there is some reason to suspect that it might regress something in PCT, please do not file a PR for it as “ready for review” and expect reviewers to catch mistakes or have to revert updates. Instead, file the PR but keep it in draft, wait for an incremental release, and file a draft PR against bom which includes all proposed changes in combination (paste in the URLs in GitHub so we get backlinks) and is marked with a suitable label to run tests on the weekly line or the relevant LTS lines. (Before filing, you can also follow instructions in bom for running selected tests locally.) Only when that is green should the component PRs be opened up for review.

@olamy
Copy link
Member Author

olamy commented Mar 29, 2024

I do not follow all the nuances here, but as a procedural request: if it is not clear in advance whether some proposed plugin change will fix something in PCT, or there is some reason to suspect that it might regress something in PCT, please do not file a PR for it as “ready for review” and expect reviewers to catch mistakes or have to revert updates. Instead, file the PR but keep it in draft, wait for an incremental release, and file a draft PR against bom which includes all proposed changes in combination (paste in the URLs in GitHub so we get backlinks) and is marked with a suitable label to run tests on the weekly line or the relevant LTS lines. (Before filing, you can also follow instructions in bom for running selected tests locally.) Only when that is green should the component PRs be opened up for review.

sure I will change that.
If only Maven have a scope such pct-fix-workaround :)

@olamy
Copy link
Member Author

olamy commented Mar 29, 2024

see jenkinsci/bom#3070

@olamy olamy marked this pull request as draft March 29, 2024 09:21
@olamy olamy marked this pull request as ready for review April 3, 2024 01:20
olamy added a commit to olamy/bom that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2024
Signed-off-by: Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org>
@jglick jglick requested a review from jtnord April 8, 2024 20:47
@olamy
Copy link
Member Author

olamy commented May 21, 2024

different fix with #98

@olamy olamy closed this May 21, 2024
@olamy olamy deleted the trilead-test-scope branch May 21, 2024 07:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants