[openstack-dev] [tripleo][ironic][heat] Adding back the tripleo check job
Ruby Loo
rlooyahoo at gmail.com
Mon Nov 30 17:51:53 UTC 2015
On 30 November 2015 at 10:19, Derek Higgins <derekh at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> A few months tripleo switch from its devtest based CI to one that was
> based on instack. Before doing this we anticipated disruption in the ci
> jobs and removed them from non tripleo projects.
>
> We'd like to investigate adding it back to heat and ironic as these
> are the two projects where we find our ci provides the most value. But we
> can only do this if the results from the job are treated as voting.
>
What does this mean? That the tripleo job could vote and do a -1 and block
ironic's gate?
>
> In the past most of the non tripleo projects tended to ignore the
> results from the tripleo job as it wasn't unusual for the job to broken for
> days at a time. The thing is, ignoring the results of the job is the reason
> (the majority of the time) it was broken in the first place.
> To decrease the number of breakages we are now no longer running
> master code for everything (for the non tripleo projects we bump the
> versions we use periodically if they are working). I believe with this
> model the CI jobs we run have become a lot more reliable, there are still
> breakages but far less frequently.
>
> What I proposing is we add at least one of our tripleo jobs back to both
> heat and ironic (and other projects associated with them e.g. clients,
> ironicinspector etc..), tripleo will switch to running latest master of
> those repositories and the cores approving on those projects should wait
> for a passing CI jobs before hitting approve. So how do people feel about
> doing this? can we give it a go? A couple of people have already expressed
> an interest in doing this but I'd like to make sure were all in agreement
> before switching it on.
>
> This seems to indicate that the tripleo jobs are non-voting, or at least
won't block the gate -- so I'm fine with adding tripleo jobs to ironic. But
if you want cores to wait/make sure they pass, then shouldn't they be
voting? (Guess I'm a bit confused.)
--ruby
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151130/a20f6950/attachment.html>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list