Add note to chromium cq config to get sign-off from chrome-eng-review per wiki.

Add note to chromium cq config to get sign-off from chrome-eng-review per wiki.

We couldn't put this note in the config file when it was json because there was no support for comments.

Committed: https://crrev.com/6a53179e6a06d12a659274e7bb68e36545bdcecd
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#346387}

[jam, 2015-08-10 21:13:26]

jam@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ phajdan.jr@chromium.org

[jam, 2015-08-10 21:13:27]

hey Pawel, can you ensure that new configs that get added to the chrome cq get
signoff from chrome-eng-review? this was agreed on a while ago but i think we
haven't done a good job of following it. thanks

[jam, 2015-08-10 21:13:33]

The CQ bit was checked by jam@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-10 21:14:00]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1274183004/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1274183004/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-10 22:24:18]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-10 22:24:19]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-08-11 15:31:43]

Good point. Before we land this though, can we have some discussion? I started a
thread on c-i-t.

[jam, 2015-08-14 22:41:44]

On 2015/08/11 15:31:43, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Good point. Before we land this though, can we have some discussion? I started
a
> thread on c-i-t.

ping

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-08-17 11:48:28]

On 2015/08/14 at 22:41:44, jam wrote:
> On 2015/08/11 15:31:43, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> > Good point. Before we land this though, can we have some discussion? I
started a
> > thread on c-i-t.
> 
> ping

Could you see https://goto.google.com/jpjyr ?

I'd like to understand the motivation here. Maybe there's something the CQ team
could improve internally for example.

[jam, 2015-08-20 21:21:01]

On 2015/08/17 11:48:28, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> On 2015/08/14 at 22:41:44, jam wrote:
> > On 2015/08/11 15:31:43, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> > > Good point. Before we land this though, can we have some discussion? I
> started a
> > > thread on c-i-t.
> > 
> > ping
> 
> Could you see https://goto.google.com/jpjyr ?

yeah, I had seen that but there were no replies to your message.

> 
> I'd like to understand the motivation here. Maybe there's something the CQ
team
> could improve internally for example.

The motivation for this is to ensure there's some checking of every new
configuration that is supported by the team. The infra team has traditionally
been focused on supported all the requests that come from different teams to add
new configs. However sometimes pushback is needed because it doesn't make sense
that a config is added to the CQ, so that's why we had come up with this
solution (eng-review + chase, a while ago).

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-08-24 15:52:27]

On 2015/08/20 at 21:21:01, jam wrote:
> On 2015/08/17 11:48:28, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> > On 2015/08/14 at 22:41:44, jam wrote:
> > > On 2015/08/11 15:31:43, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> > > > Good point. Before we land this though, can we have some discussion? I
> > started a
> > > > thread on c-i-t.
> > > 
> > > ping
> > 
> > Could you see https://goto.google.com/jpjyr ?
> 
> yeah, I had seen that but there were no replies to your message.

Feel free to respond. I'd prefer the discussion to happen there where it's more
visible than this CL.

> > I'd like to understand the motivation here. Maybe there's something the CQ
team
> > could improve internally for example.
> 
> The motivation for this is to ensure there's some checking of every new
configuration that is supported by the team. The infra team has traditionally
been focused on supported all the requests that come from different teams to add
new configs. However sometimes pushback is needed because it doesn't make sense
that a config is added to the CQ, so that's why we had come up with this
solution (eng-review + chase, a while ago).

I agree with the motivation. I'm just not sure if that's the most effective way
to implement it especially now that we have a dedicated CQ team.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-08-31 11:44:56]

LGTM

[jam, 2015-08-31 14:12:03]

The CQ bit was checked by jam@chromium.org

[jam, 2015-08-31 14:12:03]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
phajdan.jr@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1274183004/#ps20001
(title: "update to add 2 comments per thread")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-31 14:12:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1274183004/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1274183004/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-31 15:22:01]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-31 15:22:39]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/6a53179e6a06d12a659274e7bb68e36545bdcecd
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#346387}