Mathieu,
That sounds exactly what we need. Do we run tempest or something on
those to validate it?
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:34 PM, mathieu bultel <mbultel at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Adriano
>
> On 01/17/2017 03:05 PM, Adriano Petrich wrote:
>
> So I want to make a backwards compatibility job upstream so from last
> scrum I got the feeling that we should not be adding more stuff to the
> experimental jobs due to lack of resources (and large queues)
>
> What kind of "test" do you want to add ?
> I ask because since few days we have upstream an upgrade job that does:
> master UC -> deploying a Newton OC with Newton OC + tht stable/newton ->
> then upgrade the OC to master with tht master branch.
> It's sounds like a "small backward compatibility" validation, but I'm not
> sure if it's cover what you need.
>
> Is that so? I was thinking about using nonha-multinode-oooq that seems to
> be working.
>
> Is that allright to add this new job or should I wait until we get more
> resource and do ci.centos for now, or any idea on where to do this is also
> welcome.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Adriano
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170117/f7495d54/attachment.html>