Hi folks, I want to bring this topic up again. We had a blocker in Fuel-Web project - Evgeniy L found a bug for old releases, so I had to add data migration.
Today I built a new ISO and it successfully passed BVT tests. So I would ask you to merge this patches if there are no objections. Thanks, Igor On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnit...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Folks, > > BVT tests are passed successfully. > What about merging? > > Thanks, > Igor > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Igor Kalnitsky > <ikalnit...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> As I mentioned early, I already have an ISO with patches and it works >> fine in my own deployment. >> >> However, I ran the BVT tests on centos [1] and ubuntu [2]. >> >> [1]: >> http://jenkins-product.srt.mirantis.net:8080/view/custom_iso/job/custom.centos.bvt_1/198/ >> [2]: >> http://jenkins-product.srt.mirantis.net:8080/view/custom_iso/job/custom.ubuntu.bvt_2/170/ >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Mike Scherbakov >> <mscherba...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> I have no objections, and essentially I'm for such initiatives at the >>> beginning of development cycle, when risks are lower. >>> If we ensure tests coverage, and do it carefully (for instance, building >>> custom ISO with changes and making sure it passes BVTs), then let's do it. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnit...@mirantis.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi fuelers, >>>> >>>> I'm going to propose you remove "fuelweb" word from repos' paths. What >>>> am I talking about? Let me show you. >>>> >>>> Currently we have the following paths to repos: >>>> >>>> /var/www/nailgun/2014.2-6.0/centos/fuelweb/x86_64/ >>>> /var/www/nailgun/2014.2-6.0/ubuntu/fuelweb/x86_64/ >>>> >>>> Obviously, the word "fuelweb" is redundant here and doesn't reflect >>>> reality, because our repos contain not only fuel packages, but >>>> openstack. >>>> >>>> Moreover, fuel-upgrade script installs repos without that word >>>> ("fuelweb", I mean) so we have inconsistent file structure for repos, >>>> which may lead to problems in future. >>>> >>>> So I propose to do it now, while we can do it without risks and >>>> safety. I prepared a set of patches >>>> >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126885/ >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126886/ >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126887/ >>>> >>>> and built an ISO #508 [1] - both master node and centos cluster was >>>> deployed successfully. >>>> >>>> Folks, please, take a look over patches above and let's merge it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Igor >>>> >>>> >>>> [1]: >>>> http://jenkins-product.srt.mirantis.net:8080/view/custom_iso/job/custom_master_iso/508/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Scherbakov >>> #mihgen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
