[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Relieving CI/gate jenkins bottleneck

Bartlomiej Piotrowski bpiotrowski at mirantis.com
Thu Jan 21 10:09:59 UTC 2016


Let's drop 3.3 as well. 3.4 is oldschool enough for vintage lovers.

BP

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Aleksandr Didenko <adidenko at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I also think 3.3 is the version that ships with 14.04.
>
> 3.4.3 is shipped with Ubuntu-14.04. I think 3.4, 3.8 and 4 should be
> enough.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Sergii Golovatiuk <
> sgolovatiuk at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for 3.3, 3.4, 3.8 and 4
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Sergii Golovatiuk,
>> Skype #golserge
>> IRC #holser
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Alex Schultz <aschultz at mirantis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Matthew Mosesohn
>>> <mmosesohn at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Unit tests on CI and gate bottleneck are really slowing down commit
>>> > progress. We recently had a meeting to discuss possible ways to improve
>>> > this, including symlinks, caching git repositories, etc, but one thing
>>> we
>>> > can do much faster is to simply disable 3.3-3.7 puppet jobs. We don't
>>> deploy
>>> > Fuel 9.0 (or 8.0) on earlier Puppet versions, so what value is there
>>> to the
>>> > checks? I propose we remove these tests, and hopefully we will see some
>>> > immediate relief.
>>> >
>>>
>>> How about we reduce to 3.3, 3.4, 3.8 and 4?  We would remove  3.6 and
>>> 3.7 which would reduce the number of jobs by a third  The goal of
>>> keeping the others was to ensure that if/when we are able to install
>>> fuel-library without our version of puppet that a user could use
>>> whatever version their environment has. There were some changes
>>> between 3.3 and 3.4 (if I remember correctly) so we should keep
>>> checking that as it's also the oldest version supported by the
>>> upstream puppet openstack modules.  I also think 3.3 is the version
>>> that ships with 14.04.  Additionally we used 3.4 in fuel 7 and below
>>> so we should keep those around.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> > Matthew Mosesohn
>>> >
>>> >
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> > Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20160121/f67e3bcc/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list