<div dir="ltr">







<p class="">We believe we have satisfied the required criteria [1] to have NetApp’s fibre channel drivers included in the Kilo release. We have submitted a revert patch [2] along with posting an ether pad [3] to provide more detail on our progress. Thanks for your consideration.</p>
<p class=""><span class="">[1] <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059990.html"><span class="">http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059990.html</span></a></span></p>
<p class=""><span class="">[2] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/169781/"><span class="">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/169781/</span></a></span></p>
<p class=""><span class="">[3] <a href="https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/NetApp-Kilo-Fibre-Channel"><span class="">https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/NetApp-Kilo-Fibre-Channel</span></a> </span></p><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks so much,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">-Alex</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Ryan Hsu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rhsu@vmware.com" target="_blank">rhsu@vmware.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks for clarifying!<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Ryan<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Mike Perez <<a href="mailto:thingee@gmail.com">thingee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 00:24 Fri 27 Mar     , Ryan Hsu wrote:<br>
>> Rightfully so, but it doesn't hurt to offer suggestions that might improve<br>
>> the community. It would just be nice to have exclusions reconsidered if there<br>
>> are legitimate bugs behind them. You see them all the time in the tempest<br>
>> tests ala "SKIPPED: Skipped until Bug: 1373513 is resolved" so  it's hard to<br>
>> understand why we can't just apply the same principles to third-party CI.<br>
><br>
> Your usage of exclusions is fine for fixing bugs in my opinion. My meaning of<br>
> exclusion was not allowing these additional tests to be discovered.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Mike Perez<br>
><br>
> __________________________________________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
> Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br>
<br>
__________________________________________________________________________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>