Open Stack

The neutron full job is finally voting, and the first patch [1] has already
passed it in gate checks!
I've collected a few data points before it was switched to voting, and we
should probably expect a failure rate around 4%. This is not bad, but
neither great, and everybody's contribution will be appreciated in
reporting and assessing the nature gate failures, which, needless to say,
are mostly races.

Note: we've also added the postgresql version of the same job, but that is
not voting yet as we never executed it before.

Salvatore

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105694/


On 12 August 2014 20:14, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com> wrote:

> And just when the patch was only missing a +A, another bug slipped in!
> The nova patch to fix it is available at [1]
>
> And while we're there, it won't be a bad idea to also push the neutron
> full job, as non-voting, into the integrated gate [2]
>
> Thanks in advance,
> (especially to the nova and infra cores who'll review these patches!)
> Salvatore
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113554/
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113562/
>
>
> On 7 August 2014 17:51, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Armando,
>>
>> The fix for the bug you pointed out was the reason of the failure we've
>> been seeing.
>> The follow-up patch merged and I've removed the wip status from the patch
>> for the full job [1]
>>
>> Salvatore
>>
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/
>>
>>
>> On 7 August 2014 16:50, Armando M. <armamig at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Salvatore,
>>>
>>> I did notice the issue and I flagged this bug report:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1352141
>>>
>>> I'll follow up.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Armando
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 August 2014 01:34, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had to put the patch back on WIP because yesterday a bug causing a
>>>> 100% failure rate slipped in.
>>>> It should be an easy fix, and I'm already working on it.
>>>> Situations like this, exemplified by [1] are a bit frustrating for all
>>>> the people working on improving neutron quality.
>>>> Now, if you allow me a little rant, as Neutron is receiving a lot of
>>>> attention for all the ongoing discussion regarding this group policy stuff,
>>>> would it be possible for us to receive a bit of attention to ensure both
>>>> the full job and the grenade one are switched to voting before the juno-3
>>>> review crunch.
>>>>
>>>> We've already had the attention of the QA team, it would probably good
>>>> if we could get the attention of the infra core team to ensure:
>>>> 1) the jobs are also deemed by them stable enough to be switched to
>>>> voting
>>>> 2) the relevant patches for openstack-infra/config are reviewed
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Salvatore
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJtZXNzYWdlOlwie3UnbWVzc2FnZSc6IHUnRmxvYXRpbmcgaXAgcG9vbCBub3QgZm91bmQuJywgdSdjb2RlJzogNDAwfVwiIEFORCBidWlsZF9uYW1lOlwiY2hlY2stdGVtcGVzdC1kc3ZtLW5ldXRyb24tZnVsbFwiIEFORCBidWlsZF9icmFuY2g6XCJtYXN0ZXJcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiMTcyODAwIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7InVzZXJfaW50ZXJ2YWwiOjB9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTQwNzQwMDExMDIwNywibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ==
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 23 July 2014 14:59, Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:40:02PM +0200, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>>>> > Here I am again bothering you with the state of the full job for
>>>>> Neutron.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The patch for fixing an issue in nova's server external events
>>>>> extension
>>>>> > merged yesterday [1]
>>>>> > We do not have yet enough data points to make a reliable assessment,
>>>>> but of
>>>>> > out 37 runs since the patch merged, we had "only" 5 failures, which
>>>>> puts
>>>>> > the failure rate at about 13%
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is ugly compared with the current failure rate of the smoketest
>>>>> (3%).
>>>>> > However, I think it is good enough to start making the full job
>>>>> voting at
>>>>> > least for neutron patches.
>>>>> > Once we'll be able to bring down failure rate to anything around 5%,
>>>>> we can
>>>>> > then enable the job everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that sounds like a good plan. I'm also curious how the failure
>>>>> rates
>>>>> compare to the other non-neutron jobs, that might be a useful
>>>>> comparison too
>>>>> for deciding when to flip the switch everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As much as I hate asymmetric gating, I think this is a good
>>>>> compromise for
>>>>> > avoiding developers working on other projects are badly affected by
>>>>> the
>>>>> > higher failure rate in the neutron full job.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we discussed this during the project meeting a couple of weeks ago
>>>>> [3] and
>>>>> there was a general agreement that doing it asymmetrically at first
>>>>> would be
>>>>> better. Everyone should be wary of the potential harms with doing it
>>>>> asymmetrically and I think priority will be given to fixing issues
>>>>> that block
>>>>> the neutron gate should they arise.
>>>>>
>>>>> > I will therefore resume work on [2] and remove the WIP status as
>>>>> soon as I
>>>>> > can confirm a failure rate below 15% with more data points.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for keeping on top of this Salvatore. It'll be good to finally
>>>>> be at
>>>>> least partially gating with a parallel job.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matt Treinish
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103865/
>>>>> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-07-08-21.03.log.html#l-28
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 10 July 2014 11:49, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On 10 July 2014 11:27, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> > >> Hash: SHA512
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> On 10/07/14 11:07, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>>>> > >> > The patch for bug 1329564 [1] merged about 11 hours ago. From
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> > >> > it seems there has been an improvement on the failure rate,
>>>>> which
>>>>> > >> > seem to have dropped to 25% from over 40%. Still, since the
>>>>> patch
>>>>> > >> > merged there have been 11 failures already in the full job out
>>>>> of
>>>>> > >> > 42 jobs executed in total. Of these 11 failures: - 3 were due to
>>>>> > >> > problems in the patches being tested - 1 had the same root
>>>>> cause as
>>>>> > >> > bug 1329564. Indeed the related job started before the patch
>>>>> merged
>>>>> > >> > but finished after. So this failure "doesn't count". - 1 was
>>>>> for an
>>>>> > >> > issue introduced about a week ago which actually causing a lot
>>>>> of
>>>>> > >> > failures in the full job [3]. Fix should be easy for it; however
>>>>> > >> > given the nature of the test we might even skip it while it's
>>>>> > >> > fixed. - 3 were for bug 1333654 [4]; for this bug discussion is
>>>>> > >> > going on on gerrit regarding the most suitable approach. - 3
>>>>> were
>>>>> > >> > for lock wait timeout errors. Several people in the community
>>>>> are
>>>>> > >> > already working on them. I hope this will raise the profile of
>>>>> this
>>>>> > >> > issue (maybe some might think it's just a corner case as it
>>>>> rarely
>>>>> > >> > causes failures in smoke jobs, whereas the truth is that error
>>>>> > >> > occurs but it does not cause job failure because the jobs isn't
>>>>> > >> > parallel).
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Can you give directions on where to find those lock timeout
>>>>> failures?
>>>>> > >> I'd like to check logs to see whether they have the same nature as
>>>>> > >> most other failures (e.g. improper yield under transaction).
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > This logstash query will give you all occurences of lock wait
>>>>> timeout
>>>>> > > issues: message:"(OperationalError) (1205, 'Lock wait timeout
>>>>> exceeded; try
>>>>> > > restarting transaction')" AND tags:"screen-q-svc.txt"
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > The fact that in most cases the build succeeds anyway is
>>>>> misleading,
>>>>> > > because in many cases these errors occur in RPC handling between
>>>>> agents and
>>>>> > > servers, and therefore are not detected by tempest. The neutron
>>>>> full job,
>>>>> > > which is parallel, increases their occurrence because of
>>>>> parallelism - and
>>>>> > > since API request too occur concurrently it also yields a higher
>>>>> tempest
>>>>> > > build failure rate.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > However, as I argued in the past the "lock wait timeout" error
>>>>> should
>>>>> > > always be treated as an error condition.
>>>>> > > Eugene has already classified lock wait timeout failures and filed
>>>>> bugs
>>>>> > > for them a few weeks ago.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > Summarizing, I think time is not yet ripe to enable the full
>>>>> job;
>>>>> > >> > once bug 1333654 is fixed, we should go for it. AFAIK there is
>>>>> no
>>>>> > >> > way for working around it in gate tests other than disabling
>>>>> > >> > nova/neutron event reporting, which I guess we don't want to do.
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > Salvatore
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105239 [2]
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJidWlsZF9zdGF0dXM6RkFJTFVSRSBBTkQgbWVzc2FnZTpcIkZpbmlzaGVkOiBGQUlMVVJFXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX25hbWU6XCJjaGVjay10ZW1wZXN0LWRzdm0tbmV1dHJvbi1mdWxsXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX2JyYW5jaDpcIm1hc3RlclwiIiwiZmllbGRzIjpbXSwib2Zmc2V0IjowLCJ0aW1lZnJhbWUiOiIxNzI4MDAiLCJncmFwaG1vZGUiOiJjb3VudCIsInRpbWUiOnsiZnJvbSI6IjIwMTQtMDctMTBUMDA6MjQ6NTcrMDA6MDAiLCJ0byI6IjIwMTQtMDctMTBUMDg6MjQ6NTMrMDA6MDAiLCJ1c2VyX2ludGVydmFsIjoiMCJ9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTQwNDk4MjU2MjM2OCwibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ==
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> [3]
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJtZXNzYWdlOlwiSFRUUEJhZFJlcXVlc3Q6IFVucmVjb2duaXplZCBhdHRyaWJ1dGUocykgJ21lbWJlciwgdmlwLCBwb29sLCBoZWFsdGhfbW9uaXRvcidcIiBBTkQgdGFnczpcInNjcmVlbi1xLXN2Yy50eHRcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiY3VzdG9tIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7ImZyb20iOiIyMDE0LTA3LTAxVDA4OjU5OjAxKzAwOjAwIiwidG8iOiIyMDE0LTA3LTEwVDA4OjU5OjAxKzAwOjAwIiwidXNlcl9pbnRlcnZhbCI6IjAifSwic3RhbXAiOjE0MDQ5ODI3OTc3ODAsIm1vZGUiOiIiLCJhbmFseXplX2ZpZWxkIjoiIn0=
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1333654
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > On 2 July 2014 17:57, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
>>>>> > >> > wrote:
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> >> Hi again,
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> From my analysis most of the failures affecting the neutron
>>>>> full
>>>>> > >> >> job are because of bugs [1] and [2] for which patch [3] and [4]
>>>>> > >> >> have been proposed. Both patches address the nova side of the
>>>>> > >> >> neutron/nova notification system for vif plugging. It is worth
>>>>> > >> >> noting that these bugs did manifest only in the neutron full
>>>>> job
>>>>> > >> >> not because of its "full" nature, but because of its "parallel"
>>>>> > >> >> nature.
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> Openstackers with a good memory will probably remember we fixed
>>>>> > >> >> the parallel job back in January, before the massive "kernel
>>>>> bug"
>>>>> > >> >> gate outage [5]. However, since parallel testing was
>>>>> > >> >> unfortunately never enabled on the smoke job we run on the
>>>>> gate,
>>>>> > >> >> we allowed new bugs to slip in. For this reason I would
>>>>> recommend
>>>>> > >> >> the following: - once patches [3] and [4] have been reviewed
>>>>> and
>>>>> > >> >> merge, re-assess neutron full job failure rate over a period of
>>>>> > >> >> 48 hours (72 if the period includes at least 24 hours within a
>>>>> > >> >> weekend - GMT time) - turn neutron full job to voting if the
>>>>> > >> >> previous step reveals a failure rate below 10%, otherwise go
>>>>> back
>>>>> > >> >> to the drawing board
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> In my opinion whether the full job should be enabled in an
>>>>> > >> >> asymmetric fashion or not should be a decision for the QA and
>>>>> > >> >> Infra teams. Once the full job is made voting there will
>>>>> > >> >> inevitably be a higher failure rate. An asymmetric gate will
>>>>> not
>>>>> > >> >> cause backlogs on other projects, so less angry people, but as
>>>>> > >> >> Matt said it will still allow other bugs to slip in. Personally
>>>>> > >> >> I'm ok either way.
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> The reason why we're expecting a higher failure rate on the
>>>>> full
>>>>> > >> >> job is that we have already observed that some "known" bugs,
>>>>> such
>>>>> > >> >> as the various lock timeout issues affecting neutron tend to
>>>>> show
>>>>> > >> >> with a higher frequency on the full job because of its parallel
>>>>> > >> >> nature.
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> Salvatore
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> [1] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1329546 [2]
>>>>> > >> >> https://launchpad.net/bugs/1333654 [3]
>>>>> > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99182/ [4]
>>>>> > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103865/ [5]
>>>>> > >> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1273386
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> On 25 June 2014 23:38, Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org>
>>>>> > >> >> wrote:
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:14:16PM +0200, Salvatore Orlando
>>>>> > >> >>> wrote:
>>>>> > >> >>>> There is a long standing patch [1] for enabling the neutron
>>>>> > >> >>>> full job. Little before the Icehouse release date, when we
>>>>> > >> >>>> first pushed this, the neutron full job had a failure rate of
>>>>> > >> >>>> less than 10%. However, since has come by, and perceived
>>>>> > >> >>>> failure rates were higher, we ran again this analysis.
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>> So I'm not exactly a fan of having the gates be asymmetrical.
>>>>> > >> >>> It's very easy for breaks to slip in blocking the neutron gate
>>>>> > >> >>> if it's not voting everywhere. Especially because I think most
>>>>> > >> >>> people have been trained to ignore the full job because it's
>>>>> > >> >>> been nonvoting for so long. Is there a particular reason we
>>>>> > >> >>> just don't switch everything all at once? I think having a
>>>>> > >> >>> little bit of friction everywhere during the migration is
>>>>> fine.
>>>>> > >> >>> Especially if we do it way before a milestone. (as opposed to
>>>>> > >> >>> the original parallel switch which was right before H-3)
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> Here are the findings in a nutshell. 1) If we were to enable
>>>>> > >> >>>> the job today we might expect about a 3-fold increase in
>>>>> > >> >>>> neutron job failures when compared with the smoke test.
>>>>> > >> >>> This is
>>>>> > >> >>>> unfortunately not acceptable and we therefore need to
>>>>> > >> >>>> identify and fix
>>>>> > >> >>> the
>>>>> > >> >>>> issues causing the additional failure rate. 2) However this
>>>>> > >> >>>> also puts us in a position where if we wait until the failure
>>>>> > >> >>>> rate drops under a given threshold we might end up chasing a
>>>>> > >> >>> moving
>>>>> > >> >>>> target as new issues might be introduced at any time since
>>>>> > >> >>>> the job is
>>>>> > >> >>> not
>>>>> > >> >>>> voting. 3) When it comes to evaluating failure rates for a
>>>>> > >> >>>> non voting job,
>>>>> > >> >>> taking
>>>>> > >> >>>> the rough numbers does not mean anything, as that will take
>>>>> > >> >>>> in account patches 'in progress' which end up failing the
>>>>> > >> >>>> tests because of
>>>>> > >> >>> problems in
>>>>> > >> >>>> the patch themselves.
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> Well, that was pretty much a lot for a "nutshell"; however if
>>>>> > >> >>>> you're not yet bored to death please go on reading.
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> The data in this post are a bit skewed because of a rise in
>>>>> > >> >>>> neutron job failures in the past 36 hours. However, this rise
>>>>> > >> >>>> affects both the full
>>>>> > >> >>> and
>>>>> > >> >>>> the smoke job so it does not invalidate what we say here. The
>>>>> > >> >>>> results
>>>>> > >> >>> shown
>>>>> > >> >>>> below are representative of the gate status 12 hours ago.
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> - Neutron smoke job failure rates (all queues) 24 hours:
>>>>> > >> >>>> 22.4% 48 hours: 19.3% 7 days: 8.96% - Neutron smoke job
>>>>> > >> >>>> failure rates (gate queue only): 24 hours: 10.41% 48 hours:
>>>>> > >> >>>> 10.20% 7 days: 3.53% - Neutron full job failure rate (check
>>>>> > >> >>>> queue only as it's non voting): 24 hours: 31.54% 48 hours:
>>>>> > >> >>>> 28.87% 7 days: 25.73%
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> Check/Gate Ratio between neutron smoke failures 24 hours:
>>>>> > >> >>>> 2.15 48 hours: 1.89 7 days: 2.53
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> Estimated job failure rate for neutron full job if it were to
>>>>> > >> >>>> run in the gate: 24 hours: 14.67% 48 hours: 15.27% 7 days:
>>>>> > >> >>>> 10.16%
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> The numbers are therefore not terrible, but definitely not
>>>>> > >> >>>> good enough; looking at the last 7 days the full job will
>>>>> > >> >>>> have a failure rate about 3 times higher than the smoke job.
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> We then took, as it's usual for us when we do this kind of
>>>>> > >> >>>> evaluation, a window with a reasonable number of failures (41
>>>>> > >> >>>> in our case), and
>>>>> > >> >>> analysed
>>>>> > >> >>>> them in detail.
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> Of these 41 failures 17 were excluded because of infra
>>>>> > >> >>>> problems, patches 'in progress', or other transient failures;
>>>>> > >> >>>> considering that over the
>>>>> > >> >>> same
>>>>> > >> >>>> period of time 160 full job runs succeeded this would leave
>>>>> > >> >>>> us with 24 failures on 184 run, and therefore a failure rate
>>>>> > >> >>>> of 13.04%, which not
>>>>> > >> >>> far
>>>>> > >> >>>> from the estimate.
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> Let's consider now these 24 'real' falures: A)  2 were for
>>>>> > >> >>>> the SSH timeout (8.33% of failures, 1.08% of total full
>>>>> > >> >>> job
>>>>> > >> >>>> runs). These specific failure is being analyzed to see if a
>>>>> > >> >>>> specific fingerprint can be found B) 2  (8.33% of failures,
>>>>> > >> >>>> 1.08% of total full job runs) were for a
>>>>> > >> >>> failure
>>>>> > >> >>>> in test load balancer basic, which is actually a test design
>>>>> > >> >>>> issue and
>>>>> > >> >>> is
>>>>> > >> >>>> already being addressed [2] C) 7 (29.16% of failures, 3.81%
>>>>> > >> >>>> of total full job runs) were for an
>>>>> > >> >>> issue
>>>>> > >> >>>> while resizing a server, which has been already spotted and
>>>>> > >> >>>> has a bug in progress [3] D) 5 (20.83% of failures, 2.72% of
>>>>> > >> >>>> total full job runs) manifested as a failure in
>>>>> > >> >>>> test_server_address; however the actual root cause was being
>>>>> > >> >>>> masked by [4]. A bug has been filed [5]; this is the most
>>>>> > >> >>>> worrying one
>>>>> > >> >>> in
>>>>> > >> >>>> my opinion as there are many cases where the fault happens
>>>>> > >> >>>> but does not trigger a failure because of the way tempest
>>>>> > >> >>>> tests are designed. E) 6 are because of our friend lock wait
>>>>> > >> >>>> timeout. This was initially
>>>>> > >> >>> filed
>>>>> > >> >>>> as [6] but since then we've closed it to file more detailed
>>>>> > >> >>>> bug reports
>>>>> > >> >>> as
>>>>> > >> >>>> the lock wait timeout can manifest in various places; Eugene
>>>>> > >> >>>> is leading
>>>>> > >> >>> the
>>>>> > >> >>>> effort on this problem with Kevin B.
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> Summarizing the only failure modes specific to the full job
>>>>> > >> >>>> seem to be
>>>>> > >> >>> C &
>>>>> > >> >>>> D. If we were able to fix those we should reasonably expect a
>>>>> > >> >>>> failure
>>>>> > >> >>> rate
>>>>> > >> >>>> of about 6.5%. That's still almost twice as the smoke job,
>>>>> > >> >>>> but I deem it acceptable for two reasons: 1- by voting, we
>>>>> > >> >>>> will avoid new bugs affecting the full job from being
>>>>> > >> >>>> introduced. it is worth reminding people that any bug
>>>>> > >> >>>> affecting the full job is likely to affect production
>>>>> > >> >>>> environments
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>> +1, this is a very good point.
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> 2- patches failing in the gate will spur neutron developers
>>>>> > >> >>>> to quickly
>>>>> > >> >>> find
>>>>> > >> >>>> a fix. Patches failing a non voting job will cause some
>>>>> > >> >>>> neutron core
>>>>> > >> >>> team
>>>>> > >> >>>> members to write long and boring posts to the mailing list.
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>> Well, you can always hope. :) But, in my experience the error
>>>>> > >> >>> is often fixed quickly but the lesson isn't learned, so it
>>>>> will
>>>>> > >> >>> just happen again. That's why I think we should just grit our
>>>>> > >> >>> teeth and turn it on everywhere.
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> Salvatore
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>>
>>>>> > >> >>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/ [2]
>>>>> > >> >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98065/ [3]
>>>>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1329546 [4]
>>>>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/1332414 [5]
>>>>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1333654 [5]
>>>>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1283522
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>> Very cool, thanks for the update Salvatore. I'm very excited
>>>>> to
>>>>> > >> >>> get this voting.
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>> -Matt Treinish
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev
>>>>> > >> >>> mailing list OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> >>>
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev
>>>>> > >> > mailing list OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>> > >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>>>>> > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTvlxzAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57FJ8H/i+gPR/VZuWFvkOu7pNTHuSj
>>>>> > >> 8iSA1LJRGe7I9185Gbh22fVzGlahqDpB2hCJjKtWIcL/ml/pgSNGzafB/DhqUUlL
>>>>> > >> 4GT1UUHptqlKaNX9GLl9I/bknUBEtpwg3hSBivVdCkRYiVwfX86a2ZeeHaCAONwY
>>>>> > >> ykhiNgoXhR6mr8oEJEIvtjnTDlodR+1dcEq+Nchf/6Fzd8J29dI2Qu38JkweK/qP
>>>>> > >> m6koPdKSJFzrneOWMCW0Dta6yBKjb3bMCNJUVO/KSGg+MRuSmrufOmLCW5JFu95S
>>>>> > >> DWIQSTWs3A+dSy9+xuByClQP9kDpG3aUXxW6uRu5UshHMAF5vLATmdCdK4kBiBY=
>>>>> > >> =K9qm
>>>>> > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> > >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>>
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> 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/20140816/9ef3eb99/attachment.html>