History | Log In     View a printable version of the current page.  
Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: QB-2277
Type: New Feature New Feature
Status: Resolved Resolved
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Major Major
Assignee: Unassigned
Reporter: Justin Georgeson
Votes: 0
Watchers: 1
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
QuickBuild

Need a way to trigger a build of a specific change request from Gerrit

Created: 05/Jan/15 10:35 PM   Updated: 17/Aug/15 08:23 PM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 6.0.3
Fix Version/s: 6.0.25

Original Estimate: Unknown Remaining Estimate: Unknown Time Spent: Unknown


 Description  « Hide
In the case that a Gerrit verification build fails due to QB config settings, we need to be able to rerun that build. Currently the only way to do that without creating a new config is to set "Queue changed branches only" which results in all open change sets being rebuilt (even if they've already been voted +1 Verified, or even worse if they're also failing due to QB config setting which hasn't yet been fixed, resulting in redundant failure votes).

 All   Comments   Work Log   Change History      Sort Order:
Justin Georgeson [15/Jul/15 02:44 PM]
I recall having a discussion about this over email but that appears to have been lost to corporate mailbox cleanup policies. Has this been evaluated?

Robin Shen [16/Jul/15 12:47 AM]
I've backed log this, but would like to see more votes before it come up at the top of queue for fixing.

Robin Shen [16/Aug/15 12:59 PM]
Please upgrade to 6.0.25 and follow below tutorial:
http://wiki.pmease.com/display/QB60/Build+Against+Specific+Gerrit+Change

Justin Georgeson [17/Aug/15 08:23 PM]
Thanks! If I'm reading the tutorial correctly, I still need to change the 'Queue changed branches' setting to yes in order to rebuild a Change that failed it's initial verification build. It won't rebuild all open changes anymore when I do that, but I do still need to toggle the setting, build the one change, and then toggle the setting back to 'no'. Is that correct?