[GHC DevOps Group] CircleCI job accounting question

[Ben Gamari]

Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> writes:

> The problem is that many contributors, including Simon PJ, Richard, and
> me, tend to push batches of work
>
> I have not been following this thread (“job accounting” seemed above
> my pay grade) but I saw this mention of my name 😊. Without having
> read myself into the context there seem to be two issues
>
>
>   * Every commit to master should be validate-clean, and this should
>   be tested by the CI framework not by the contributor. This is
>   essential. I would be delighted if every commit I made went through
>   that gate. I’m careful, but occasionally not careful enough.
>
>   * Most – perhaps all – commits should go through a code-review
>   process. Here I freely admit that I tend to use (or abuse?) my
>   status to make most of my commits without review, except perhaps
>   informally with individuals. I’d be absolutely willing to review
>   this if (a) in fact people think that the extra step would really
>   improve quality (perhaps looking at past commits) or (b) the very
>   fact that I do so makes people feel cross.
>
I personally think that we should strive for your first point (every
commit should be validate-clean) before attempting to tackle your
second. I, for one, am rather skeptical that putting all of your patches
through review would significantly affect quality.

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devops-group/attachments/20171211/eb4f6f6d/attachment.sig>