On 08/03/2012 09:57 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 17:48 +0300, Gary Kotton wrote:
>> Will you also be fixing the pep8 issues in the common code?
>
> When the pep8 running in openstack-common reports the issue, yes, it
> will make sense to fix it. Since I have already synchr
Yeah - transient error. We're seeing more of them recently (see Jim's
recent email to the list in the Jenkins and transient failures thread)
But - we're working on it. We've got several different things in work to
prevent these from happening. Sorry for the annoyance ... hopefully will
all be bett
On 06/05/2012 07:54 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
> Hi Monty and Dan,
> Background: A short while ago I started to port bug fixes for Quantum
> from Folsom-1 to Stable Essex. Jenkins did not accept the patches due to
> the fact that the automatic tests did not pass. The failures are due to
> 2 reasons:
>
ate their version (or recreate their tox env. from scratch).
> Seems fine with me.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Monty Taylor <mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wrote:
>
> Well - there are two choices... you can upgrade to 1.1, or you can p
Well - there are two choices... you can upgrade to 1.1, or you can put
in an entry into tox.ini, changing:
deps=pep8
to
deps = pep8==0.6.1
We're working on getting this to the point where the pep8 version in
test-requires is honored.
On 05/25/2012 04:46 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
> Hi Monty,
>
Gimme a day or two - we're about to roll out a thing which adds all of
the standard jobs for everything driven from files in git ... so this
all gets much easier real soon.
On 05/16/2012 07:21 PM, Yong Sheng Gong wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I cannot find the quantum-client coverage report on jenkins sie:
>
On it.
On 03/15/2012 11:53 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
> Hi Sumit,
>
> I don't expect that this is a problem with your commit in particular.
>
> I'm CC'ing Monty and James, as my best guess is that this is a backend
> CI issue. Here's the error:
>
> Successfully installed quantum
> Cleaning up
You're trying to pull a change from python-quantumclient into a
python-novaclient repo.
On 02/21/2012 03:38 PM, Edgar Magana (eperdomo) wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I am not sure if it is just me or the process has changed and I missed
> it but I got the below error when I tried to pull the quantum
Hey!
I actually think we can leave nose and pep8 out of the install_requires
as well, since that's really only going to get used by pip. BUT - it's
not going to hurt anything.
Monty
On 01/24/2012 04:16 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
> Hi Monty,
>
> Here's a patch to remove what I believe are the unne
8/2012 08:55 AM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Monty Taylor <mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've got a python-quantumclient repo made and pushed to
> > https://github.com/emonty/pyth
On 01/18/2012 06:12 AM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
> Thanks Monty! Inline
>
> Dan
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Monty Taylor <mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wrote:
>
> Hey guys -
>
> Quick status update from me here:
>
> First
think we're on the verge of having some really kickass stuff
going on here.
Anyway - poke at stuff, play around with it - tell me if you think I'm
nuts or not.
Monty
On 01/12/2012 08:08 AM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Monty Taylor <mailto:m
t; when you get to that point.
>
> And as cdub mentioned at the end of the meeting, the sooner we can do
> this, the better in terms of distros that will need to change their
> packaging in time for essex.
>
> thanks for driving this.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
meeting, the sooner we can do
> this, the better in terms of distros that will need to change their
> packaging in time for essex.
>
> thanks for driving this.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Monty Taylor <mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wro
Great list.
For quantum/common/test_lib.py, I've been working with Jason Kölker to
get nova to be able to use nose directly without run_tests.py. To that
end, he's written openstack-nose. I'd love it if we could get quantum to
use that as well instead of test_lib.py.
(ultimate goal is that we run
On 01/04/2012 02:31 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> I am 100% behind this effort. In fact, Glance can/should be a perfect
> candidate to test this kind of common code.
>
> AFAICT, the things that need to be done to make this a reality are:
>
> 1) Get openstack-common gated in Gerrit
> 2) Get it packaged
++
I think as a parallel thing, some of the things that are in
quantum.common _might_ want to live in openstack.common.
On 01/03/2012 12:55 PM, Brad Hall wrote:
> I still vote for #2. I don't think there will be a ton of duplication so
> we're probably ok in that regard. Also, it sounds like
Hi!
Forgive the top-post response here, but I think me just giving a summary
up here is more useful.
Splitting client from server gets us a few things, but let me lay a mild
amount of (possibly annoying) groundwork.
OpenStack does not produce distro packages as an output. What we do
produce are
On 01/03/2012 01:25 AM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
> The last netstack email about splitting Quantum repos touched a bit on
> openstack-common, but I thought it was worth creating a separate
> specifically on Quantum + openstack-common. I've tried to CC some of
> the people that seem to be driving dis
ces+salvatore.orlando=eu.citrix@lists.launchpad.net
>> <mailto:netstack-bounces+salvatore.orlando=eu.citrix@lists.launchpad.net>[mailto:netstack-bounces+salvatore.orlando=eu.citrix@lists.launchpad.net
>> <mailto:eu.citrix@lists.launchpad.net>] *On Behalf Of *Joseph Heck
Hey guys!
We need to get a build slave spun up for quantum.
Normally - this would mean making sure that we had packaging and
build-deps done properly ... but that's going to be a little bit.
SO
If someone could grab the github.com/openstack/openstack-ci-puppet, add
something in manifests/site.p
21 matches
Mail list logo
