[tripleo][ci] Monday Nov 2

Yatin Karel ykarel at redhat.com
Wed Nov 4 13:19:18 UTC 2020


Hi,

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:31 PM Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 6:20 AM Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobreli at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/30/20 6:31 PM, Wesley Hayutin wrote:
>>> > Greetings,
>>> >
>>> > The tripleo ci team has identified a handful of patches that we'd like
>>> > to land prior to Nov 2, the day docker.io <http://docker.io> goes away.
>>> >   We've hit some new bugs and have also tuned a few things to try and
>>> > make sure we can get patches to merge.
>>> >
>>> > Our current focus is across master, victoria, ussuri and centos-8 train,
>>> > and queens while reducing coverage in rocky and stein.
>>> >
>>> > A list of the prioritized gerrit reviews can be found here:
>>> > https://hackmd.io/MlbZ_izSTEuZsCWTJvu_Kg?view
>>> >
>>> > The entire topic can be found here:
>>> > https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:new-ci-job
>>>
>>> In that list there are patches to puppet modules and openstack services
>>> what run a single standalone tripleo CI job. I don't think creating an
>>> extra provider job to run a single consumer job sounds reasonable.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Thanks all.
>>
>>
>> So our first pass there I think should be a content-provider. However we could potentially drop the content-provider and override docker.io -> quay.io as well.  We are not certain yet how well quay.io will perform so we're being cautious atm.
>>
>
> or as currently discussing with sshnaidm on irc the job itself can build the containers instead of having a content provider do that
>
>
> 17:38 < sshnaidm|rover> maybe in puppet repos we will just build containers?
> 17:38 < sshnaidm|rover> it's one standalone job there only, irrc
> 17:38 < sshnaidm|rover> I think bogdan is right
> 17:39 < marios> sshnaidm|rover: but is it worth it to special case that? in the end it is still just 'build one
>                 set of containers' does it matter if it happens in a content provider or in the job itself? I
>                 guess it depends how stable are the cotnent providers and the answer is 'not always' ... :/
> 17:40 < sshnaidm|rover> marios, it will remain one job there, not two
> 17:40 < sshnaidm|rover> and no need to change layouts, just adding one variable
> 17:40 < sshnaidm|rover> these repos anyway don't expect to run anything else from tripleo
> 17:41 < sshnaidm|rover> ~10 repos * N branches, will save us a little work..
> 17:41 < marios> sshnaidm|rover: ack ... if it is easy enough to have that as special case then OK. and yes
>                 having one job instead of 2 (one content provider) brings its own benefits
>
I raised it in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/760420 couple of days
ago, just a note for standalone it should work fine but for other job
like undercloud ones which also runs in some projects would need to
add support for  container-builds via build_container_images: true for
those non provider jobs.


>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bogdan Dobrelya,
>>> Irc #bogdando
>>>
>>>

Thanks and Regards
Yatin Karel




More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list