Please note that turbo-hipster currently has -1 voting disabled while
we work through these issues. +1 voting is still enabled though.
Michael
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> So instead of trying to fix t
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
[snip]
> So instead of trying to fix the individual runs, because t-h runs pretty
> fast, can you just fix it with bulk. It seems like the issue in a migration
> taking a long time isn't a race in OpenStack, it's completely variability in
> the
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Matt Riedemann
wrote:
> Another question. This patch [1] failed turbo-hipster after it was approved
> but I don't know if that's a gating or just voting job, i.e. should someone
> do 'reverify migrations' on that patch or just let it sit and ignore
> turbo-hipste
On 9 January 2014 07:05, Samuel Merritt wrote:
> On 1/7/14 2:53 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>> So applying migration 206 took slightly over a minute (67 seconds).
>> Our historical data (mean + 2 standard deviations) says that this
>> migration should take no more than 63 seconds. So this only just
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Still"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 5:53:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Bogus -1 scores from turbo hipster
>
> Hi. Th
On 1/7/14 2:53 PM, Michael Still wrote:
Hi. Thanks for reaching out about this.
It seems this patch has now passed turbo hipster, so I am going to
treat this as a more theoretical question than perhaps you intended. I
should note though that Joshua Hesketh and I have been trying to read
/ triage
On 01/08/2014 09:48 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Another question. This patch [1] failed turbo-hipster after it was
approved but I don't know if that's a gating or just voting job, i.e.
should someone do 'reverify migrations' on that patch or just let it sit
and ignore turbo-hipster?
[1] https:
On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 4:53:01 PM, Michael Still wrote:
Hi. Thanks for reaching out about this.
It seems this patch has now passed turbo hipster, so I am going to
treat this as a more theoretical question than perhaps you intended. I
should note though that Joshua Hesketh and I have been
Hi. Thanks for reaching out about this.
It seems this patch has now passed turbo hipster, so I am going to
treat this as a more theoretical question than perhaps you intended. I
should note though that Joshua Hesketh and I have been trying to read
/ triage every turbo hipster failure, but that has
On 12/30/2013 6:21 AM, Michael Still wrote:
Hi.
The purpose of this email to is apologise for some incorrect -1 review
scores which turbo hipster sent out today. I think its important when
a third party testing tool is new to not have flakey results as people
learn to trust the tool, so I want
10 matches
Mail list logo
