Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-28 Thread Monty Taylor
On 07/28/2014 02:32 PM, Angus Lees wrote: On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:22:07 AM Doug Hellmann wrote: On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Angus Lees wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 04:39:49 PM David Kranz wrote: On 07/21/2014 04:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Thanks Matthew

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-28 Thread Angus Lees
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:22:07 AM Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Angus Lees wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 04:39:49 PM David Kranz wrote: > >> On 07/21/2014 04:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >>> On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Thanks Matthew for the analysis. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-28 Thread Ihar Hrachyshka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 28/07/14 16:22, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Angus Lees wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 04:39:49 PM David Kranz wrote: >>> On 07/21/2014 04:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > T

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-28 Thread Doug Hellmann
On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Angus Lees wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 04:39:49 PM David Kranz wrote: >> On 07/21/2014 04:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Thanks Matthew for the analysis. I think you missed something though. Right no

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-28 Thread Ihar Hrachyshka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 28/07/14 08:52, Angus Lees wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 04:39:49 PM David Kranz wrote: >> On 07/21/2014 04:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Thanks Matthew for the analysis. I think you missed s

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-27 Thread Angus Lees
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 04:39:49 PM David Kranz wrote: > On 07/21/2014 04:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Thanks Matthew for the analysis. > >> > >> I think you missed something though. > >> > >> Right now the frustration is that unrelated intermittent bugs

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-22 Thread Sean Dague
On 07/22/2014 11:51 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 07/22/2014 10:48 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: >> On 07/21/2014 12:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: >>> Thanks Matthew for the analysis. >>> >>> I think you missed something though. >>> >>> Right now the frustration is that unrelated intermittent bugs stop your >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-22 Thread Jay Pipes
On 07/22/2014 10:48 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: On 07/21/2014 12:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Thanks Matthew for the analysis. I think you missed something though. Right now the frustration is that unrelated intermittent bugs stop your presumably good change from getting in. Without gating, the res

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-22 Thread Chris Friesen
On 07/21/2014 12:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Thanks Matthew for the analysis. I think you missed something though. Right now the frustration is that unrelated intermittent bugs stop your presumably good change from getting in. Without gating, the result would be that even more bugs, many of them

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-21 Thread Sean Dague
On 07/21/2014 04:39 PM, David Kranz wrote: > On 07/21/2014 04:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >> On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: >>> Thanks Matthew for the analysis. >>> >>> I think you missed something though. >>> >>> Right now the frustration is that unrelated intermittent bugs stop your >>> p

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-21 Thread David Kranz
On 07/21/2014 04:13 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Thanks Matthew for the analysis. I think you missed something though. Right now the frustration is that unrelated intermittent bugs stop your presumably good change from getting in. Without gating, the result

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-21 Thread Jay Pipes
On 07/21/2014 02:03 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Thanks Matthew for the analysis. I think you missed something though. Right now the frustration is that unrelated intermittent bugs stop your presumably good change from getting in. Without gating, the result would be that even more bugs, many of them

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-21 Thread Clint Byrum
Thanks Matthew for the analysis. I think you missed something though. Right now the frustration is that unrelated intermittent bugs stop your presumably good change from getting in. Without gating, the result would be that even more bugs, many of them not intermittent at all, would get in. Right

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-21 Thread Samuel Merritt
On 7/21/14, 3:38 AM, Matthew Booth wrote: [snip] I would like to make the radical proposal that we stop gating on CI failures. We will continue to run them on every change, but only after the change has been successfully merged. Benefits: * Without rechecks, the gate will use 8 times fewer reso

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-21 Thread Chris Friesen
On 07/21/2014 04:38 AM, Matthew Booth wrote: I would like to make the radical proposal that we stop gating on CI failures. We will continue to run them on every change, but only after the change has been successfully merged. Benefits: * Without rechecks, the gate will use 8 times fewer resource

[openstack-dev] [gate] The gate: a failure analysis

2014-07-21 Thread Matthew Booth
On Friday evening I had a dependent series of 5 changes all with approval waiting to be merged. These were all refactor changes in the VMware driver. The changes were: * VMware: DatastorePath join() and __eq__() https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103949/ * VMware: use datastore classes get_allowed_