On Mon, Jan 04 2016, Steven Hardy wrote: Hi,
> Firstly, I'm very sorry for the breakage here, and I agree that in general > a quick-revert is the best policy when something like this happens. No problem Steven, shit happens. It'd be even better if Heat'd move to a devstack plugin to limit this kind of high level latency. Just by curiosity, is there a plan for that? > I'm a little unclear how this occurred tho, since I had a clear CI run on > this patch: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/256315/ I think the dsvm tests are not the same that we run on telemetry side: we run it with the Gnocchi backend, whereas you're likely using the (old) Ceilometer backend. And that's the Gnocchi backend that has been broken by the original devstack change from what I saw. Maybe Heat should also run this job, WDYT? > Given that the review latency on Devstack is quite high, it seems possible > we'll land (2) before (1) lands, but if not then I'll re-propose it and > hopefully figure out where I went wrong with Depends-On to confirm all is > fixed before it lands. Yeah, whatever fixes the issue I'm ok with. :-) If you can fix Heat faster, that'd be even cooler. -- Julien Danjou # Free Software hacker # https://julien.danjou.info
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
