Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [third-party][ci] devstack failures

om] > *Sent:* Monday, December 5, 2016 7:43 AM > *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [cinder] [third-party][ci] devstack failures > > > > Hello, > > > > I am encountering devstack failures on our Cinder CI [1]. Could you please > help

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [third-party][ci] devstack failures

Deshpande [mailto:apps.d...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 7:43 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [third-party][ci] devstack failures Hello, I am encountering devstack failures on our Cinder CI [1]. Could you please help me debug this? Last

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [third-party][ci] devstack failures

On 12/05/2016 04:43 PM, Apoorva Deshpande wrote: > [1] http://openstack-ci.tintri.com/tintri/refs-changes-23-405223-4/ This is failing at 2016-12-05 01:19:17.356 | + functions-common:git_timed:598 : timeout -s SIGINT 0 git clone git://git.openstack.org/openstack/horizon.git /opt/st

[openstack-dev] [cinder] [third-party][ci] devstack failures

Hello, I am encountering devstack failures on our Cinder CI [1]. Could you please help me debug this? Last successful devstack installation was [2]. [1] http://openstack-ci.tintri.com/tintri/refs-changes-23-405223-4/ [2] http://openstack-ci.tintri.com/tintri/refs-changes-95-393395-7/ thanks, @ap

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][third-party] CI FC passthrough scripts now available on stackforge

On 06/03/2015 11:44 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > Ramy and Patrick - thank you for your work on this. This piece is > definitely a challenge for any FC vendors setting up third party CI. > > On 06/03/2015 09:59 AM, Asselin, Ramy wrote: >> >> For anyone working on 3^rd party CI FC drivers: >> >> Patri

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][third-party] CI FC passthrough scripts now available on stackforge

Ramy and Patrick - thank you for your work on this. This piece is definitely a challenge for any FC vendors setting up third party CI. On 06/03/2015 09:59 AM, Asselin, Ramy wrote: For anyone working on 3^rd party CI FC drivers: Patrick East and I have been working on making “FC pass-through”

[openstack-dev] [cinder][third-party] CI FC passthrough scripts now available on stackforge

For anyone working on 3rd party CI FC drivers: Patrick East and I have been working on making “FC pass-through” scripts. The main use case of these scripts is to present the FC HBAs directly inside a VM in order to test your FC cinder driver. Now available in stackforge [1] Link available in cin

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

Mike, This effort has taken quite some time and was going to require hard decisions to be made at some point. You have been more than patient in this process and I commend you for that as well as all the communication. Thank you for continuing to drive this! Jay On Mar 24, 2015 10:55 PM, "Mont

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: adding Mellanox CI to Wiki

dpkshe...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:22 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: Murad Awawdeh Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: adding Mellanox CI to Wiki On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Lenny Verkhovsky mailto:len...@mellanox.com>&g

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: adding Mellanox CI to Wiki

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Lenny Verkhovsky wrote: > Hi All, > > Please add Mellanox Cinder CI to this page > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/third-party-ci-status > Lenny, You should be able to edit and add this yourself, once you login with your ID on that page thanx, deepa

[openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: adding Mellanox CI to Wiki

Hi All, Please add Mellanox Cinder CI to this page https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/third-party-ci-status Driver name: iSER-LIO, iSER-ISCSI Contact: Lenny Verkhovsky cinder...@mellanox.com Status: voting and reporting Issues: none Reference https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartySystems/

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On 03/24/2015 06:05 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Doug Hellmann > wrote: > >> Excerpts from Mark McClain's message of 2015-03-24 10:25:31 -0400: >>> >>> Echoing both Thierry and John. I support Mike’s decision to enforce the >> requirement. Maintaining drivers in the

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Mark McClain's message of 2015-03-24 10:25:31 -0400: > > > > Echoing both Thierry and John. I support Mike’s decision to enforce the > requirement. Maintaining drivers in the tree comes with responsibilities to > the community

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

I also absolutely agree that Mike did a great job on the communication with the driver maintainers and a lot more, especially in the hectic days around the K-3 deadline. Removing any driver lacking CI testing was just the right thing to do, even if this affected our SMB3 driver. Hopefully this is

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

Dell - Internal Use - Confidential +2 on Mike’s job From: Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:07 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)) I’d like to suggest that the myriad wiki pages and spreadsheets for Third Party CI also be consolidated to a more

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

+10 to mike; I have no doubt this is an uneasy and tough task. Thanks mike for pushing this through; given all the challenges and hard work (and likely not fun work) that had to be done. I salute u! :) -Josh Duncan Thomas wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 22:50, Mike Perez mailto:thin...@gmail.com

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

Excerpts from Mark McClain's message of 2015-03-24 10:25:31 -0400: > > Echoing both Thierry and John. I support Mike’s decision to enforce the > requirement. Maintaining drivers in the tree comes with responsibilities to > the community and 3rd party CI is one of the them. Mike enforcing this

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 9:30 AM, John Griffith wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > > Thanks Mike for all of your efforts on this, > > +1 > > I think Mike checked all the possible boxes to give fai

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > > Thanks Mike for all of your efforts on this, > > +1 > > I think Mike checked all the possible boxes to give fair warning to > driver owners. > > It's hard to say "no" in the name of quality. It's so much easie

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > Thanks Mike for all of your efforts on this, +1 I think Mike checked all the possible boxes to give fair warning to driver owners. It's hard to say "no" in the name of quality. It's so much easier to just say "yes" and avoid all the hatemail and the pressure. Mike d

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > On 03/23/2015 01:50 PM, Mike Perez wrote: > >> On 12:59 Mon 23 Mar , Stefano Maffulli wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote: >>> We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On 23 March 2015 at 22:50, Mike Perez wrote: > > I've talked to folks at the OpenStack foundation to get feedback on my > communication, and was told this was good, and even better than previous > communication to controversial changes. > > I expected nevertheless people to be angry with me and b

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: > I'm really disappointed that there hasn't been more support for Mike in > this process. I can see how everyone thought I was the problem last year > when I had to endure this kind of treatment in Neutron, but I would > think after seeing the ex

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

As an Engineer running the NetApp CI, I thought it would be a good time to chime in here. While I have many opinions around this whole process, I will try my best to avoid any judgement and minimize ratholes. Over the past year, we have implemented a scalable CI system that is now running tests ag

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On 21:51 Mon 23 Mar , Rochelle Grober wrote: > I’d like to suggest that the myriad wiki pages and spreadsheets for Third > Party CI also be consolidated to a more manageable count. Just looking for > maintainers contact, you can find information (often conflicting) in > Stackalytics, on the Th

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

k Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: > [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)) > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Stefano Maffulli > mailto:stef...@open

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)) On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Stefano Maffulli mailto:stef...@openstack.org>> wrote: On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote: > We'v

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next?

On 03/23/2015 05:21 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 16:23 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: >> Some folks just will not respect other people's time. To pretend >> otherwise is a huge dis-service to folks trying their hardest to >> support those worthy of the support. > > This may be tru

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote: > > We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI > deadlines > > in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that you're > > required to have

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next?

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 16:23 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: > Some folks just will not respect other people's time. To pretend > otherwise is a huge dis-service to folks trying their hardest to > support those worthy of the support. This may be true in general but I have yet to be convinced that this is

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On 03/23/2015 01:50 PM, Mike Perez wrote: On 12:59 Mon 23 Mar , Stefano Maffulli wrote: On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote: We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI deadlines in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that you

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On 12:59 Mon 23 Mar , Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote: > > We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI > > deadlines > > in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that you're > > required to have a CI b

Re: [openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On 03/23/2015 03:59 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote: >> We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI >> deadlines >> in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that you're >> required to have a CI by the

[openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote: > We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI > deadlines > in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that you're > required to have a CI by the end of Kilo [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. This > should've

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Third Party CI

All vendors working on cinder third party ci are encouraged to attend the 3rd party ci meetings. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty This is a great place to ask questions, report issues, and share solutions. Ramy _

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Third-Party CI Issue: direct access to review.openstack.org port 29418 required

ent Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Third-Party CI Issue: direct access to > review.openstack.org port 29418 required > > Hi Asselin, > > Do you had problems with other ports? Is it need to have outbound access to > other ports? &

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Third-Party CI Issue: direct access to review.openstack.org port 29418 required

June 13, 2014 4:03 AM > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Third-Party CI Issue: direct > access to review.openstack.org port 29418 required > > > > Hi Asselin, > > > > Do you had problems with othe

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Third-Party CI Issue: direct access to review.openstack.org port 29418 required

As far as I know, that’s the only non-standard port that needs to be opened in order to do 3rd party ci. Ramy From: Erlon Cruz [mailto:sombra...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 4:03 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Third-Party CI Issue: direct access to review.openstack.org port 29418 required

Hi Asselin, Do you had problems with other ports? Is it need to have outbound access to other ports? Erlon On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Asselin, Ramy wrote: > All, > > > > I’ve been working on setting up our Cinder 3rd party CI setup. > > I ran into an issue where Zuul requires direct ac

[openstack-dev] [Cinder] Third-Party CI Issue: direct access to review.openstack.org port 29418 required

All, I've been working on setting up our Cinder 3rd party CI setup. I ran into an issue where Zuul requires direct access to review.openstack.org port 29418, which is currently blocked in my environment. It should be unblocked around the end of June. Since this will likely affect other vendors,