Hi John,
Am 27.09.2013 00:54 schrieb :
>
> I am smoking the following PRs:
>
>
>
> linux-jht:~/GIT/crowbar> ./dev pull-requests multiswitch
pebbles/openstack-os-build 5 14 16 22 23 28 31 40 47 66
>
> 2013-09-26 17:49:39 -0500: Switched to pebbles/openstack-os-build
>
> 2013-09-26 17:49:39 -0500: M
smoking:
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-nova_dashboard/pull/102
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-cinder/pull/77
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-glance/pull/131
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-quantum/pull/125
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-tempest/pull/47
[cid:image001.jpg@01C
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-nova/pull/227
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-nova/pull/230
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-cinder/pull/78
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-cinder/pull/80
I am periodically bumping into an issue deploying nova_dashboard
Will check on i
I am smoking the following PRs:
linux-jht:~/GIT/crowbar> ./dev pull-requests multiswitch
pebbles/openstack-os-build 5 14 16 22 23 28 31 40 47 66
2013-09-26 17:49:39 -0500: Switched to pebbles/openstack-os-build
2013-09-26 17:49:39 -0500: Merging
https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-crowbar/pull/6
Now that CB 2.0 is capable of bootstrapping itself and of partially
bootstrapping other nodes into Sledgehammer, I figured it would be a good time
to provide a brain dump going over the main components of Crowbar and how they
interact with each other. Feedback and questions welcome!
There are
Dell - Internal Use - Confidential
Judd,
Please, smoketest them.
I run smoketest yesterday yesterday night and bumped into an issue deploying
swift on 5 nodes.
And that is without any PRs in the build.
Thanks,
Arkady
-Original Message-
From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Judd Maltin
Sent:
I went through them all very carefully, but have not tested them. If
they're working for others, I'm for merging them into Pebbles.
-judd
--
Judd Maltin
T: 917-882-1270
F: 501-694-7809
what could possibly go wrong?
___
Crowbar mailing list
Crowbar@de
Vincent Untz (vu...@suse.com) wrote:
> What I'm not happy with is the merge process. I think our current
> process is broken because it's not able to handle the flow of incoming
> pull requests, and when we're trying to compensate this by pushing hard
> we do mistakes like this one.
Agreed! The c
Along those lines, I’ve created the page for the next agenda so we can add
items:
http://crowbar.sync.in/sprint-2013-10-03
From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Hirschfeld, Rob
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:09 AM
To: rha...@suse.de; crowbar
Subject: Re: [Crowbar] RHEL/CentOS pull requests me
Please discuss on both. I believe the agreed rules are clear, this issue is
whether or not we follow them.
The following comment is made as an excuse for committing the RHEL/CentOS
patches: If at any time there is a strong opinion that a pull-request should
NOT be merged it is appropriate t
Yes, continue to discuss on the list or IRC!
IMHO, the calls provide a place/time to close issues. It allows everyone to
know when we’ll make a decision so they can get their points in before.
-Original Message-
From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Ralf Haferkamp
Sent: Thursday, September
Dell - Internal Use - Confidential
+1. This should be nailed out where there is a public record.
> -Original Message-
> From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Ralf Haferkamp
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:54 AM
> To: crowbar
> Subject: Re: [Crowbar] RHEL/CentOS pull requests merged wi
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:40:17AM -0500, rob_hirschf...@dell.com wrote:
> Vincent,
>
> This would be a good topic for discussion at the next planning.
I may sound like a broken record. But why should this wait until the next
planning call? IMO it makes perfect sense to continue the discussio
Vincent,
This would be a good topic for discussion at the next planning.
I’m reviewing the history on the pulls (which were 4 weeks old) and they had
active comment threads.
In other cases where community members have expressed reservation, we’ve used a
“-1” to indicate a blocking issue to res
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the people here (and certainly not
Sergey who's been taking the feedback and fixing things). The pull
requests are probably mostly okay (except for the fact that they
increase our technical debt in several ways).
What I'm not happy with is the merge process. I t
I apologize and will take responsibility too. Will be more diligent.
Thanks
Rajini
From: Terpstra, John
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:12 AM
To: Сергей Юдин; Vincent Untz
Cc: crowbar; Kanevsky, Arkady; Ram, Rajini
Subject: RE: [Crowbar] RHEL/CentOS pull requests merged without any +1 from o
Vincent/Octavian,
Apologies- I gave the OK to merge these patches. I heard that a build with the
patches merged passed the smoketests. As an expediency to move forward with
clearing the pull-request backlog I asked Rajini to merge them in �C I am
sorry, I jumped the gun on these. This was a ba
Hi All,
While investigating some IP-related issue (reported for windows nodes), we have
found a bug, in our opinion. When multiple ethernet adapters are present, a
host file is created in /etc/dhcp3/hosts.d/ for each of the interfaces. All
these files contain the same IP address (see the 4 att
Hi,
The following pull requests got merged while they had no +1 from
non-Dell people (and the +1 from Dell happened just before the merge, so
with no time for anyone to react), and while there were comments that I
feel were either not addressed or needed more discussion:
https://github.com/crowba
19 matches
Mail list logo
