Open Stack

On 12/20/2015 5:35 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
> Hi all (Actually I'mm really looking a Dan, Sean and Matt)
>
> We have a 2 changes in stable/liberty
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248505 Add -constraints sections for CI jobs ; and
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248877 Remove the TestRemoteObject class
>
> If you grab 248505 and look at the git DAG you get:
> $ git log --oneline --decorate  -3
> 83ca84a (HEAD -> review/sachi_king/bp/Requirements-Management) Add -constraints sections for CI jobs
> 6e2da82 Remove the TestRemoteObject class
> 94d6b69 (origin/stable/liberty, gerrit/stable/liberty) Omnibus stable fix for upstream requirements breaks
>
> so 248877 is based on stable/liberty and 248505 is based on 248877
>
> The problem is that 248877 Depends-On 248505[1]
>
> I think the correct solution is to remove the Depends-On directive from 248877.
>
> I didn't do that thing as:
> 1. I don't understand whay that there and could be missing something
> 2. Doing so would loose th 2+2's and +W anyway so wont really help.
>
>
> Yours Tony.
> [1] Well it Depends on Icbbb78cfcd074b0050e60c54557637af723f9b92 which maps to
>      the same change in master and stable/liberty ....
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248505 depends on 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248877 because without it the unit 
tests fail in the constraints job, which we wanted to see passing before 
landing 248505, so they are stacked such that we could see the unit 
tests passing in the constraints job in 248877 when it's on top of the 
stack. I'm not sure why the depends-on was added to 248877, Sean added 
that I think.

We could remove the depends-on and I could fast approve, that's not a 
problem, but now the tempest job is failing on both so I'll have to 
check that out first.

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann