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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Adding new substructure triggers to B2G DQM #15901

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 4, 2016
Merged

Adding new substructure triggers to B2G DQM #15901

merged 1 commit into from Oct 4, 2016

Conversation

alefisico
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@cmsbuild cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_8_0_X milestone Sep 19, 2016
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @alefisico (Alejandro Gomez Espinosa) for CMSSW_8_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

HLTriggerOffline/B2G

@cmsbuild, @dmitrijus, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@jdolen, @rappoccio this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are list here #13028

@dmitrijus
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Sep 23, 2016 •
edited

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/15360/console

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

@dmitrijus
Copy link
Contributor

-1
Just noticed, 81x is still missing! It was opened and closed. Please either create a new PR for 81x or close this one.

@alefisico
Copy link
Contributor Author

sorry but the PR for 81X #15874 was merged, or am I missing something?
Also, maybe I am confused but you are saying that if I open the PR for 80X I should NOT open for 81X and viceversa?

@dmitrijus
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Sorry. it means I just failed to find 81x request. That's why you should always link them, by simply pasting a link to a 81x PR in a comment, or vice-versa.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

@dmitrijus
Copy link
Contributor

81x PR should always go first. The issue here was the 81x one not mentioned, nor this PR indicated that it is backport.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: dd287c3
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-15901/15360/summary.html

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-15901/15360/summary.html

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 5e8164e into cms-sw:CMSSW_8_0_X Oct 4, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
comparison-available dqm-approved fully-signed orp-approved tests-approved
Projects
None yet
Milestone
CMSSW_8_0_X
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@alefisico @cmsbuild @dmitrijus @davidlange6