Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] fix poor tarball support in source-repositories

On 15/08/14 20:57, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Brownell, Jonathan C (Corvallis)'s message of 2014-08-15 > 08:11:18 -0700: >> The current DIB element support for downloading tarballs via >> "source-repository" allows an entry in the following form: >> >> tar >> >> Today, this feature is

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Future CI jobs

Hi All, I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an etherpad, to better visualize the matrix of coverage I've put it into a spreadsheet[1]. Before we go about making these changes I'd like to go through a

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Future CI jobs

On 19/08/14 20:55, Gregory Haynes wrote: > Excerpts from Derek Higgins's message of 2014-08-19 10:41:11 +: >> Hi All, >> >>I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the >> tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an >> etherpad, to better visuali

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Future CI jobs

On 19/08/14 13:07, Giulio Fidente wrote: > On 08/19/2014 12:41 PM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the >> tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an >> ether

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Future CI jobs

On 19/08/14 20:58, Gregory Haynes wrote: > Excerpts from Giulio Fidente's message of 2014-08-19 12:07:53 +: >> One last comment, maybe a bit OT but I'm raising it here to see what is >> the other people opinion: how about we modify the -ha job so that at >> some point we actually kill one of

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Change of meeting time

On 24/05/14 01:21, James Polley wrote: > Following a lengthy discussion under the subject "Alternating meeting > tmie for more TZ friendliness", the TripleO meeting now alternates > between Tuesday 1900UTC (the former time) and Wednesday 0700UTC, for > better coverage across Australia, India, China

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Review metrics - what do we want to measure?

On 14/08/14 00:03, James Polley wrote: > In recent history, we've been looking each week at stats > from http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-openreviews.html > to get a gauge on how our review pipeline is tracking. > > The main stats we've been tracking have been the "since the last >

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Review metrics - what do we want to measure?

On 04/09/14 14:54, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2014-09-04 11:01:55 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote: > [...] >> How would people feel about turning [auto-abandon] back on? > > A lot of reviewers (myself among them) feel auto-abandon was a > cold and emotionless way to

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Propose adding StevenK to core reviewers

+1 On 09/09/14 19:32, Gregory Haynes wrote: > Hello everyone! > > I have been working on a meta-review of StevenK's reviews and I would > like to propose him as a new member of our core team. > > As I'm sure many have noticed, he has been above our stats requirements > for several months now. Mor

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Adding hp1 back running tripleo CI

I've been running overcloud CI tests on hp1 to establish if its ready to turn back on running real CI, I'd like to add this back in soon but first have some numbers we should look at and make some decisions The hp1 cloud throws up more false negatives then rh1, nearly all of these are either probl

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Set WIP for stale patches?

On 17/09/14 14:40, Charles Crouch wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> Hi, >> >> as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last >> week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for stale reviews >> (like gerrit used to do when I were a lad). >> >> The specifi

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Adding hp1 back running tripleo CI

On 15/09/14 22:37, Gregory Haynes wrote: > This is a total shot in the dark, but a couple of us ran into issues > with the Ubuntu Trusty kernel (I know I hit it on HP hardware) that was > causing severely degraded performance for TripleO. This fixed with a > recently released kernel in Trusty... ma

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] reducing our upstream CI footprint

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 17:22, Alex Schultz wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > Based on previous emails around this[0][1], I have proposed a possible > reducing in our usage by switching the scenario001--011 jobs to > non-voting and removing them from the gate[2]. This will reduce the > likelihood of cau

Re: [openstack-dev] Top Gate Bugs

On 20/11/13 14:21, Anita Kuno wrote: > Thanks for posting this, Joe. It really helps to create focus so we can > address these bugs. > > We are chatting in #openstack-neutron about 1251784, 1249065, and 1251448. > > We are looking for someone to work on 1251784 - I had mentioned it at > Monday's

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Installing from packages in tripleo-image-elements

On 08/01/14 05:07, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2014-01-07 16:27:35 -0800: >> Another piece to the conversation I think is update philosophy. If >> you are always going to require a new image and no customization after >> build ever, ever, the messiness that source u

[openstack-dev] os-*-config in tripleo repositories

It looks like we have some duplication and inconsistencies on the 3 os-*-config elements in the tripleo repositories os-apply-config (duplication) : We have two elements that install this diskimage-builder/elements/config-applier/ tripleo-image-elements/elements/os-apply-config/ A

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][review] Please treat -1s on check-tripleo-*-precise as voting.

On 17/02/14 01:25, Robert Collins wrote: > Hi! > > The nascent tripleo-gate is now running on all tripleo repositories, > *and should pass*, but are not yet voting. They aren't voting because > we cannot submit to the gate unless jenkins votes verified... *and* we > have no redundancy for the trip

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo]help needed - nodepool and zuul support for ci-overcloud

On 17/02/14 23:43, Robert Collins wrote: > So we experimented with the ci-overcloud (a TripleO deployed cloud for > running CI for TripleO) and it uncovered some bugs/limitations in > nodepool and zuul. > > We need to fix these to reduce our negative impact on the > Openstack-infra team, before th

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][review] Please treat -1s on check-tripleo-*-precise as voting.

On 21/02/14 03:31, Robert Collins wrote: > On 18 February 2014 04:30, Derek Higgins wrote: >> On 17/02/14 01:25, Robert Collins wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> The nascent tripleo-gate is now running on all tripleo repositories, >>> *and should pass*, but a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo][CI] check-tripleo outage

On 25/02/14 00:08, Robert Collins wrote: > Today we had an outage of the tripleo test cloud :(. > > tl;dr: > - we were down for 14 hours > - we don't know the fundamental cause > - infra were not inconvenienced - yaaay > - its all ok now. Looks like we've hit the same problem again tonight, I'

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] tripleo-cd-admins team update / contact info question

On 25/02/14 22:30, Robert Collins wrote: > In the tripleo meeting today we re-affirmed that the tripleo-cd-admins > team is aimed at delivering production-availability clouds - thats how > we know the the tripleo program is succeeding (or not !). > > So if you're a member of that team, you're on t

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [CI] Cinder/Ceph CI setup

On 27/11/14 10:21, Duncan Thomas wrote: > I'd suggest starting by making it an extra job, so that it can be > monitored for a while for stability without affecting what is there. we have to be careful here, adding an extra job for this is probably the safest option but tripleo CI resources are a c

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Alternate meeting time

On 02/12/14 14:10, James Polley wrote: > Months ago, I pushed for us to alternate meeting times to something that > was friendlier to me, so we started doing alternate weeks at 0700UTC. > That worked well for me, but wasn't working so well for a few people in > Europe, so we decided to give 0800UTC

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Alternate meeting time

On 02/12/14 15:12, Giulio Fidente wrote: > On 12/02/2014 03:45 PM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> On 02/12/14 14:10, James Polley wrote: >>> Months ago, I pushed for us to alternate meeting times to something that >>> was friendlier to me, so we started doing alternate weeks

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] CI report : 1/11/2014 - 4/12/2014

A month since my last update, sorry my bad since the last email we've had 5 incidents causing ci failures 26/11/2014 : Lots of ubuntu jobs failed over 24 hours (maybe half) - We seem to suffer any time an ubuntu mirror isn't in sync causing hash mismatch errors. For now I've pinned DNS on our pro

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] CI report : 1/11/2014 - 4/12/2014

On 04/12/14 13:37, Dan Prince wrote: > On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 11:51 +0000, Derek Higgins wrote: >> A month since my last update, sorry my bad >> >> since the last email we've had 5 incidents causing ci failures >> >> 26/11/2014 : Lots of ubuntu jobs failed over

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Bug squashing followup

While bug squashing yesterday, I went through quite a lot of bugs closing those that were already fixed or no longer relevant, closing around 40 bugs. I eventually ran out of time, but I'm pretty sure if we split the task up between us we could weed out a lot more. What I'd like to do is, as a onc

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] How do the CI clouds work?

On 18/12/14 08:48, Steve Kowalik wrote: > Hai, > > I am finding myself at a loss at explaining how the CI clouds that run > the tripleo jobs work from end-to-end. I am clear that we have a tripleo > deployment running on those racks, with a seed, a HA undercloud and > overcloud, but then I'm

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Bug squashing followup

See below, We got only 5 people signed up, anybody else willing to join the effort ? TL;DR if your willing to assess about 15 tripleo related bugs to decide if they are still current then add your name to the etherpad. thanks, Derek On 18/12/14 11:25, Derek Higgins wrote: > While bug squash

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Switching CI back to amd64

Hi All, I intended to bring this up at this mornings meeting but the train I was on had no power sockets (and I had no battery) so sending to the list instead. We currently run our CI with on images built for i386, we took this decision a while back to save memory ( at the time is allowed us t

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Switching CI back to amd64

On 07/01/15 23:41, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 01/07/2015 11:29 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: >> Excerpts from Derek Higgins's message of 2015-01-07 02:51:41 -0800: >>> Hi All, >>> I intended to bring this up at this mornings meeting but the train I >>> was on had no power sockets (and I had no battery) so

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] default region name

On 08/01/15 05:21, Zhou, Zhenzan wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone know why TripleO uses "regionOne" as default region name? A > comment in the code says it's the default keystone uses. > But I cannot find any "regionOne" in keystone code. Devstack uses "RegionOne" > by default and I do see lots of

[openstack-dev] [infra] Intermittent network problems allowed to sneak passed the gate?

Hi, I've been working on a check job that uses devstack-gate jobs to run the nova with the docker driver, while doing this I noticed that sometimes during the nova boot for an instance the node looses network connectivity(obviously a problem that needs to be worked on). Whats interesting is zu

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] Intermittent network problems allowed to sneak passed the gate?

On 06/05/14 16:17, Sean Dague wrote: > On 05/06/2014 10:52 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've been working on a check job that uses devstack-gate jobs to run >> the nova with the docker driver, while doing this I noticed that >> sometimes during

[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Decreasing resource usage in tripleo CI

Hi, I mentioned this at the tripleo meeting today and to get opinions out there I'd like to bring it up here, In tripleo we are currently very tight on resources to run our CI jobs and I'd like to scale back temporarily until we have either more capacity or reorganize things a bit, to more eff

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] Intermittent network problems allowed to sneak passed the gate?

On 06/05/14 23:55, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2014-05-06 15:52:04 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote: > [...] >> The job simply got restarted and this kept happening until the job passed. >> >> A legitimately failed job : >> https://jenkins05.openstack.org/jo

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Decreasing resource usage in tripleo CI

On 07/05/14 00:07, Clint Byrum wrote: > +1 to the plans. > > We've recently freed up a few more boxes for the HP region, and we'll > be rolling those out as we migrate from saucy to trusty for the rest of > the cloud. But we should do all of the things below anyway. Thanks, didn't hear any object

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Template Change Proposal

On 21/05/14 22:56, James Slagle wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Jay Dobies wrote: >> Currently, there is the following in the template: >> >> >> >> Proposed change >> === >> >> [snip] >> >> Alternatives >> >> >> [snip] >> >> Security impact >> --- >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] OpenStack races piling up in the gate - please stop approving patches unless they are fixing a race condition

On 05/06/14 13:07, Sean Dague wrote: > You may all have noticed things are really backed up in the gate right > now, and you would be correct. (Top of gate is about 30 hrs, but if you > do the math on ingress / egress rates the gate is probably really double > that in transit time right now). > >

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving tripleo-ci towards the gate

Hi All, I'm trying to get a handle on what needs to happen before getting tripleo-ci(toci) into the gate, I realize this may take some time but I'm trying to map out how to get to the end goal of putting multi node tripleo based deployments in the gate which should cover a lot of uses cases that

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] test environment requirements

On 13/03/14 16:12, James Slagle wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Robert Collins > wrote: >> So we already have pretty high requirements - its basically a 16G >> workstation as minimum. >> >> Specifically to test the full story: >> - a seed VM >> - an undercloud VM (bm deploy infra) >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] test environment requirements

On 13/03/14 09:51, Robert Collins wrote: > So we already have pretty high requirements - its basically a 16G > workstation as minimum. > > Specifically to test the full story: > - a seed VM > - an undercloud VM (bm deploy infra) > - 1 overcloud control VM > - 2 overcloud hypervisor VMs >

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] test environment requirements

On 14/03/14 20:16, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 2014-03-13 11:12, James Slagle wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Robert Collins >> wrote: >>> So we already have pretty high requirements - its basically a 16G >>> workstation as minimum. >>> >>> Specifically to test the full story: >>> - a seed V

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving tripleo-ci towards the gate

On 24/03/14 22:58, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Derek Higgins <mailto:der...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Hi All, >I'm trying to get a handle on what needs to happen before getting > tripleo-ci(toci) into the gate,

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][reviews] We're falling behind

On 25/03/14 20:17, Robert Collins wrote: > TripleO has just seen an influx of new contributors. \o/. Flip side - > we're now slipping on reviews /o\. > > In the meeting today we had basically two answers: more cores, and > more work by cores. > > We're slipping by 2 reviews a day, which given 16

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march

On 03/04/14 12:02, Robert Collins wrote: > Getting back in the swing of things... > > Hi, > like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to > date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over > time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trus

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

On 08/04/14 00:50, Robert Collins wrote: > tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: > bnemec > greghaynes > jdon +1 for all > > > On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones wrote: >> Hi >> >> +1 for your proposed -core changes. >> >> Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-d

[openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]

Hi All, I've been taking a look at devstack support for nova-docker[1] which was recently taken out of nova. I stumbled across a similar effort currently underway[2], so have based my work off that. What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devsta

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] Consolidating efforts around Fedora/Centos gate job

On 11/04/14 06:43, Ian Wienand wrote: > Hi, > > To summarize recent discussions, nobody is opposed in general to > having Fedora / Centos included in the gate. However, it raises a > number of "big" questions : which job(s) to run on Fedora, where does > the quota for extra jobs come from, how do

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]

ere is some ugliness in the nova-docker review[2] that we could avoid by > merging the integration > directly into devstack. Yup, agreed. > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84839/ > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/3/contrib/devstack/stackrc.diff > > > O

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]

On 11/04/14 21:03, Paul Czarkowski wrote: > Based on this feedback I have removed the docker portions of the review to > devstack > But have kept in the changes that make it easier for a nova drivers to add > their own > Files to the nova rootwrap.d directory. sounds good, I'll give it a go and upd

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]

On 13/04/14 01:49, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 04/12/2014 02:27 PM, James E. Blair wrote: >> Michael Still writes: >> >>> Agreed, where it makes sense. In general we should be avoiding third >>> party CI unless we need to support something we can't in the gate -- a >>> proprietary virt driver, or w

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]

On 12/04/14 04:45, Eric Windisch wrote: > > Any disagreements with that goal? > > > No disagreement at all. > > Not that we're talking yet about moving the driver back into Nova, I'd > like to take this opportunity to remind anyone interesting in > contributing a Cinder driver that it would

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Summit] Topic review for Atlanta

On 22/04/14 01:01, Robert Collins wrote: > I've pulled the summit talks into an etherpad > (https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-icehouse-summit) - btw, who > can review these within the system itself? > > Anyhow - please put comments in the etherpad and help select the > sessions we'll do dur

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] CI report : 24/09/2014 - 26/09/2014

Hi All, On Wednesday, I started keeping a short summary of issues hit by tripleo CI, so in time we can look back to properly assess the frequency or problems along with their causes. The list will be maintained here (most recent at the top) https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-ci-breakages

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] CI report : 27/09/2014 - 03/10/2014

Hi All, There was 1 CI event last week, regression in ironic https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1375641 All ironic tripleo CI tests failed for about 12 hours For more info see https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-ci-breakages thanks, Derek. __

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] CI report : 04/10/2014 - 17/10/2014

Hi All, Nothing to report since the last report, 2 weeks of no breakages. thanks, Derek. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] CI report : 18/10/2014 - 31/10/2014

Hi All, The week before last saw no problems with CI But last week we had 3 separate problems causing tripleo CI tests to fail until they were dealt with 1. pypi.openstack.org is no longer being maintained, which we were using in tripleo-ci, we've now moved to pypi.python.org 2. nova started usi

[openstack-dev] [all] config options not correctly deprecated

Tl;dr oslo.config wasn't logging warnings about deprecated config options, do we need to support them for another cycle? A set of patches to remove deprecated options in Nova was landed on Thursday[1], these were marked as deprecated during the juno dev cycle and got removed now that kilo has star

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] config options not correctly deprecated

On 10/11/14 11:00, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:45:02AM +0000, Derek Higgins wrote: >> Tl;dr oslo.config wasn't logging warnings about deprecated config >> options, do we need to support them for another cycle? > > AFAIK, there has not been

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] config options not correctly deprecated

On 13/11/14 23:56, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Ben Nemec's message of 2014-11-13 15:20:47 -0800: >> On 11/10/2014 05:00 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:45:02AM +, Derek Higgins wrote: >>>> Tl;dr oslo.config wasn't

[openstack-dev] [all] Launchpad comment boxes, not wrapping where you want??

If your like me, launchpads wrapping of paragraphs in comment boxes gets under your skin, making it very difficult to follow tracebacks, logs, etc see https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/545125 I finally got motivated to try and do something about it (at least in chrome), as the above b

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] New test envs deployed

Hi All, this morning we deployed new testenv images on the rh1 rack for CI, a number of things have changed 1. Each TE now contains 15 nodes this should allow us to deploy more VM's per job (essentially paving the way to allow us to add multiple HA controllers to our overcloud job) 2. Instances

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Proposal to add Jon Paul Sullivan and Alexis Lee to core review team

On 09/07/14 16:52, Clint Byrum wrote: > Hello! > > I've been looking at the statistics, and doing a bit of review of the > reviewers, and I think we have an opportunity to expand the core reviewer > team in TripleO. We absolutely need the help, and I think these two > individuals are well position

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] "recheck no bug" and comment

On 16/07/14 14:48, Steve Martinelli wrote: > What are the benefits of doing this over looking at the existing > rechecks, and if not there opening a bug and rechecking the new bug? I agree we should be using a bug number (or open one when needed), the example in the original email should have incl

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO core reviewer update - november

On 30/10/13 09:06, Robert Collins wrote: > Hi, like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to > date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over > time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted > with -core responsibilities. > > In this mo

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] removing sudoers.d rules from disk-image-builder

+1 to removing the suders rules we have, there adding overhead and contain enough wildcards that all they do is give people a false sense of security On 23/07/13 17:39, Chris Jones wrote: > Hi > > On 23 July 2013 10:52, Robert Collins > wrote: > > So I'd l

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] removing sudoers.d rules from disk-image-builder

On 25/07/13 09:41, Chris Jones wrote: > Hi > > On 24 July 2013 22:18, Derek Higgins <mailto:der...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> - setup passwordless sudo or >> Doesn't sound like a super awesome option to me, it places an ugly >> security problem on an

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Proposing Ian Wienand as core reviewer on diskimage-builder

On 03/11/15 15:25, Gregory Haynes wrote: Hello everyone, I would like to propose adding Ian Wienand as a core reviewer on the diskimage-builder project. Ian has been making a significant number of contributions for some time to the project, and has been a great help in reviews lately. Thus, I

[openstack-dev] [tripleo][ironic][heat] Adding back the tripleo check job

Hi All, A few months tripleo switch from its devtest based CI to one that was based on instack. Before doing this we anticipated disruption in the ci jobs and removed them from non tripleo projects. We'd like to investigate adding it back to heat and ironic as these are the two proje

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ironic][heat] Adding back the tripleo check job

On 30/11/15 17:03, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: On 11/30/2015 04:19 PM, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, A few months tripleo switch from its devtest based CI to one that was based on instack. Before doing this we anticipated disruption in the ci jobs and removed them from non tripleo projects

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ironic][heat] Adding back the tripleo check job

On 30/11/15 22:18, Steven Hardy wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:51:53PM -0500, Ruby Loo wrote: On 30 November 2015 at 10:19, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, Â Â A few months tripleo switch from its devtest based CI to one that was based on instack. Before doing this

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ironic][heat] Adding back the tripleo check job

PM, Zane Bitter wrote: > >   On 30/11/15 12:51, Ruby Loo wrote: > >    On 30 November 2015 at 10:19, Derek Higgins     <mailto:der...@redhat.com>> wrote: > >    Ã* Ã* Hi All, >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Reason for installing devstack in CI pipeline

On 16 May 2016 at 18:16, Paul Belanger wrote: > Greetings, > > Over the last few weeks I've been head deep into understanding the TripleO CI > pipeline. For the most part, I am happy that we have merged centos-7 DIB > support and I'm working to migrate the jobs to it. > > Something I have been tr

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary

On 6 May 2016 at 14:18, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been >> provided for some other projects. >> >> I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary

On 18 May 2016 at 13:34, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: >> On 6 May 2016 at 14:18, Paul Belanger wrote: >> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >&g

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary

On 19 May 2016 5:38 pm, "Paul Belanger" wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 03:50:15PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: > > On 18 May 2016 at 13:34, Paul Belanger wrote: > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: > > >> O

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Proposal for a new tool: dlrn-repo

On 13 June 2016 at 21:29, Ben Nemec wrote: > So our documented repo setup steps are three curls, a sed, and a > multi-line bash command. And the best part? That's not even what we > test. The commands we actually use in tripleo.sh --repo-setup consist > of the following: three curls, four seds,

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Delopment environment census refresh

Hi All, A while back we populated a etherpad[1] with details of our individual development environments, the idea here was that we can point newcomers to this page to give them an idea of what hard ware its possible to deploy triple on and what tools we use drive it. Its been just over 3 mo

[openstack-dev] [tripleo][infra] RH2 is up and running

Hi All, Yesterday the final patch merged to run CI jobs on RH2, and last night we merged the patch to tripleo-ci to support RH2 jobs. So we now have a new job (gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-ha) running on all tripleo patch reviews. This job is running pacemaker HA with a 3 node controller and a

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][CI] Ability to reproduce failures

On 7 April 2016 at 22:03, Gabriele Cerami wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to find an entry point to join the effort in TripleO CI. Hi Gabriele, welcome aboard > I studied the infrastructure and the scripts, but there's still something I'm > missing. > The last step of studying the complex landscape

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][CI] Ability to reproduce failures

On 13 April 2016 at 09:58, Steven Hardy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:08:28PM +0200, Gabriele Cerami wrote: >> On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 16:18 +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: >> >> > Note we're not using devtest at all anymore, the developer script >> > many >> > folks use is tripleo.sh: >> >> So, I

[openstack-dev] [TripleO][infra] HW upgrade for tripleo CI

Hi All, the long awaited RAM and SSD's have arrived for the tripleo rack, I'd like to schedule a time next week to do the install which will involve and outage window. We could attempt to do it node by node but the controller needs to come down at some stage anyways and doing other nodes groups

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][infra] HW upgrade for tripleo CI

On 6 May 2016 at 17:50, James Slagle wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> Hi All, >>the long awaited RAM and SSD's have arrived for the tripleo rack, >> I'd like to schedule a time next week to do the install which will >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][infra] HW upgrade for tripleo CI

On 6 May 2016 at 15:57, Ben Nemec wrote: > \o/ > > On 05/06/2016 09:36 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> Hi All, >>the long awaited RAM and SSD's have arrived for the tripleo rack, >> I'd like to schedule a time next week to do the install which will >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][infra] HW upgrade for tripleo CI

On 6 May 2016 at 15:36, Derek Higgins wrote: > Hi All, >the long awaited RAM and SSD's have arrived for the tripleo rack, > I'd like to schedule a time next week to do the install which will > involve and outage window. We could attempt to do it node by node but > the co

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][infra] HW upgrade for tripleo CI

On 11 May 2016 at 10:24, Derek Higgins wrote: > Hi All, > I'll be taking down the tripleo cloud today for the hardware > upgrade, The cloud will be take down at about 1PM UTC and I'll start > bringing it back up once dcops have finished installing the new HW. We > sh

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] changes in irc alerts

Hi All, For the last few months we've been alerting the #tripleo irc channel when a card is open on the tripleo trello org, in the urgent list. When used I think it served a good purpose to alert people to the fact that deploying master is currently broken, but it hasn't been used as much as

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] spec-lite process for tripleo

Hi All, We briefly discussed feature tracking in this weeks tripleo meeting. I would like to provide a way for downstream consumers (and ourselves) to track new features as they get implemented. The main things that came out of the discussion is that people liked the spec-lite process that th

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Stable branch policy for Mitaka

On 10/02/16 18:05, James Slagle wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Steven Hardy mailto:sha...@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi all, We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a ML discussion to gain consensus and give folks visibility of the outcome would be a

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream

Hi All, Something we discussed at the summit was to switch the focus of tripleo's deployment method to deploy using instack using images built with tripleo-puppet-elements. Up to now all the instack work has been done downstream of tripleo as part of rdo. Having parts of our deployment stor

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream

On 22/07/15 18:41, Gregory Haynes wrote: Excerpts from Derek Higgins's message of 2015-07-21 19:29:49 +: Hi All, Something we discussed at the summit was to switch the focus of tripleo's deployment method to deploy using instack using images built with tripleo-puppet-elements. Up to now

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream

See below On 21/07/15 20:29, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, Something we discussed at the summit was to switch the focus of tripleo's deployment method to deploy using instack using images built with tripleo-puppet-elements. Up to now all the instack work has been done downstream of tr

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream

On 24/07/15 00:56, James Slagle wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: See below On 21/07/15 20:29, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, Something we discussed at the summit was to switch the focus of tripleo's deployment method to deploy using instack using i

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream

On 06/08/15 15:01, Dougal Matthews wrote: - Original Message - From: "Dan Prince" To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Sent: Thursday, 6 August, 2015 1:12:42 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream I would really like to see

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream

rds) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/205479/ 3. pull in 3 repositories upstream https://review.openstack.org/#/c/215186/ There will be follow up patches after these but this will get the ball rolling thanks, Derek. On 23/07/15 07:40, Derek Higgins wrote: See below On 21/07/15 20:29, Derek Higgins wrot

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream

08/19/2015 12:22 PM, Dougal Matthews wrote: - Original Message - From: "Dmitry Tantsur" To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Wednesday, 19 August, 2015 5:57:36 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Moving instack upstream On 08/19/2015 06:42 PM, Derek Higgins wro

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Status of CI changes

Hi All, The patch to reshuffle our CI jobs has merged[1], along with the patch to switch the f21-noha job to be instack based[2] (with centos images). So the current status is that our CI has been removed from most of the non tripleo projects (with the exception of nova/neutron/heat and ironi

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Status of CI changes

On 03/09/15 07:34, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, The patch to reshuffle our CI jobs has merged[1], along with the patch to switch the f21-noha job to be instack based[2] (with centos images). So the current status is that our CI has been removed from most of the non tripleo projects (with the

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] trello

Hi All, Some of ye may remember some time ago we used to organize TripleO based jobs/tasks on a trello board[1], at some stage this board fell out of use (the exact reason I can't put my finger on). This morning I was putting a list of things together that need to be done in the area of CI

  1   2   >