Open Stack

Hi folks,

I want to bring this topic up again. We had a blocker in Fuel-Web
project - Evgeniy L found a bug for old releases, so I had to add data
migration.

Today I built a new ISO and it successfully passed BVT tests. So I
would ask you to merge this patches if there are no objections.

Thanks,
Igor

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> BVT tests are passed successfully.
> What about merging?
>
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Igor Kalnitsky
> <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> As I mentioned early, I already have an ISO with patches and it works
>> fine in my own deployment.
>>
>> However, I ran the BVT tests on centos [1] and ubuntu [2].
>>
>> [1]: http://jenkins-product.srt.mirantis.net:8080/view/custom_iso/job/custom.centos.bvt_1/198/
>> [2]: http://jenkins-product.srt.mirantis.net:8080/view/custom_iso/job/custom.ubuntu.bvt_2/170/
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Mike Scherbakov
>> <mscherbakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>> I have no objections, and essentially I'm for such initiatives at the
>>> beginning of development cycle, when risks are lower.
>>> If we ensure tests coverage, and do it carefully (for instance, building
>>> custom ISO with changes and making sure it passes BVTs), then let's do it.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi fuelers,
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to propose you remove "fuelweb" word from repos' paths. What
>>>> am I talking about? Let me show you.
>>>>
>>>> Currently we have the following paths to repos:
>>>>
>>>>     /var/www/nailgun/2014.2-6.0/centos/fuelweb/x86_64/
>>>>     /var/www/nailgun/2014.2-6.0/ubuntu/fuelweb/x86_64/
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, the word "fuelweb" is redundant here and doesn't reflect
>>>> reality, because our repos contain not only fuel packages, but
>>>> openstack.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, fuel-upgrade script installs repos without that word
>>>> ("fuelweb", I mean) so we have inconsistent file structure for repos,
>>>> which may lead to problems in future.
>>>>
>>>> So I propose to do it now, while we can do it without risks and
>>>> safety. I prepared a set of patches
>>>>
>>>>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126885/
>>>>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126886/
>>>>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126887/
>>>>
>>>> and built an ISO #508 [1] - both master node and centos cluster was
>>>> deployed successfully.
>>>>
>>>> Folks, please, take a look over patches above and let's merge it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Igor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]:
>>>> http://jenkins-product.srt.mirantis.net:8080/view/custom_iso/job/custom_master_iso/508/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Scherbakov
>>> #mihgen
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>