Open Stack

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:35:43PM -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> On 06/10/2016 05:48 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 06/10/2016 08:41 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> >> On 2016-06-10 11:49:12 +0100 (+0100), Miles Gould wrote:
> >>> On 09/06/16 23:21, Jay Faulkner wrote:
> >>>> There was some discussion about whether or not the Ironic grenade job
> >>>> should be in the check pipeline (even as -nv) for grenade,
> >>>
> >>> Not having this would mean that changes to grenade could silently break
> >>> Ironic's CI, right? That sounds really bad.
> >>
> >> That's like saying it's really bad that changes to devstack could
> >> silently break devstack-based jobs for random projects, and so they
> >> should be tested against every one of those jobs. At some point you
> >> have to draw a line between running a reasonably representative
> >> sample and running so many jobs that you'll never be able to merge
> >> another change again (because even very small nondeterministic
> >> failure rates compound to make that impossible at a certain scale).
> > 
> > Nothing should be voting in check in grenade that requires a plugin.
> > 
> > I'm fine with a few things in check nv if they are doing something out
> > of the ordinary that we think needs to be kept on top of. I also expect
> > that ironic folks are going to watch for those failures, and say, with
> > -1/+1 CR, when they are legit and when it was off the rails. A non
> > voting job that doesn't have domain experts validating the content
> > regularly with CR means it gets ignored if it fails a bunch.
> > 
> 
> I'd like to see this job running in the grenade check queue so we can watch it
> there, and trace back to anything that affects us in unexpected ways. As Sean
> points out, it should not be made voting in grenade's check queue.

FWIW, Sean approved that this morning :)

> 
> It _should_ be made voting in Ironic's queue as soon as we have gathered
> stability data for it. I'd love to see that get turned on in a week. With the
> current patch volume, I think we'll be able to get plenty of stability data in
> that time.

++ agree completely.

// jim

> 
> --devananda
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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