On 08/14/2014 12:35 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/13/2014 06:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:05 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
Sean Dague s...@dague.net writes:
This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrote a
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:52:05 -0400
Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/13/2014 06:35 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/13/2014 06:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:05 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
Sean Dague
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:05:27PM -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
Sean Dague s...@dague.net writes:
This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrote a Grease Monkey
script to purge all the 3rd Party CI content out of Jenkins UI. People
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
Sean Dague s...@dague.net writes:
This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrote a Grease Monkey
script to purge all the 3rd Party CI content out of Jenkins UI. People
are writing mail filters to dump all the notifications. Dan Berange
You may have noticed that this has merged, along with a further change
that shows the latest results in a table format. (You may need to
force-reload in your browser to see the change.)
Friggin. Awesome.
Thanks again to Radoslav Gerganov for writing the original change.
Thanks to all
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com writes:
You may have noticed that this has merged, along with a further change
that shows the latest results in a table format. (You may need to
force-reload in your browser to see the change.)
Friggin. Awesome.
Thanks again to Radoslav Gerganov for writing
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote:
You may have noticed that this has merged, along with a further change
that shows the latest results in a table format. (You may need to
force-reload in your browser to see the change.)
Very cool!! this is really
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:05 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
Sean Dague s...@dague.net writes:
This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrote a Grease Monkey
script to purge all the 3rd Party CI content out of Jenkins UI. People
are
Chmouel Boudjnah chmo...@enovance.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote:
You may have noticed that this has merged, along with a further change
that shows the latest results in a table format. (You may need to
force-reload in your browser to
On 08/13/2014 06:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:05 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
Sean Dague s...@dague.net writes:
This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrote a Grease Monkey
script to purge all the 3rd Party
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote:
If it is not worth looking at a job that is run by the OpenStack CI
system, please propose a patch to openstack-infra/config to delete it
from the Zuul config. We only want to run what's useful, and we have
other
On 08/13/2014 06:35 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/13/2014 06:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:05 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
Sean Dague s...@dague.net writes:
This has all gone far enough that someone actually wrote a
Chmouel Boudjnah chmo...@enovance.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote:
If it is not worth looking at a job that is run by the OpenStack CI
system, please propose a patch to openstack-infra/config to delete it
from the Zuul config. We only
On 2 July 2014 16:11, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
Hmmm, my first response - given that long chew we had on the ml[0] about
the use of the word certified as well as the short confirmation we had
in the tc meeting[1] that the word certified would not be used, but
rather some version
On 07/04/2014 08:11 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 2 July 2014 16:11, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
Hmmm, my first response - given that long chew we had on the ml[0] about
the use of the word certified as well as the short confirmation we had
in the tc meeting[1] that the word certified
-gate.yaml
-Original Message-
From: Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 7:03 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] 3rd Party CI vs. Gerrit
On 1 July 2014 14:44, Anita Kuno ante
On 07/01/2014 10:03 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 1 July 2014 14:44, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
On 07/01/2014 05:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
For the record, cinder gave a very clear definition of success in our
3rd party guidelines: Passes every test in tempest-dsm-full. If that
On 30 June 2014 16:49, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
Right now that dashboard introduces more confusion than it alleviates
since the definition of success in regards to third party ci systems
has yet to be defined by the community.
For the record, cinder gave a very clear definition
On 07/01/2014 05:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 30 June 2014 16:49, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
Right now that dashboard introduces more confusion than it alleviates
since the definition of success in regards to third party ci systems
has yet to be defined by the community.
For
On 1 July 2014 14:44, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
On 07/01/2014 05:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
For the record, cinder gave a very clear definition of success in our
3rd party guidelines: Passes every test in tempest-dsm-full. If that
needs documenting somewhere else, please let me
: [openstack-dev] [all] 3rd Party CI vs. Gerrit
On 1 July 2014 14:44, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
On 07/01/2014 05:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
For the record, cinder gave a very clear definition of success in our
3rd party guidelines: Passes every test in tempest-dsm-full
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 08:26:44AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/27/2014 7:35 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 07:40:51AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
It's clear that lots of projects want 3rd Party CI information on
patches. But it's also clear that 6 months into this
On 06/29/2014 09:39 AM, Joshua Hesketh wrote:
On 6/28/14 10:40 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
An alternate approach would be to have third-party CI systems register
jobs with OpenStack's Zuul rather than using their own account. This
would mean only a single report of all jobs (upstream and
Joshua Hesketh joshua.hesk...@rackspace.com writes:
On 6/28/14 10:40 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
An alternate approach would be to have third-party CI systems register
jobs with OpenStack's Zuul rather than using their own account. This
would mean only a single report of all jobs (upstream and
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote on 06/27/2014 12:33:48 PM:
What if 3rd Party CI didn't vote in Gerrit? What if it instead
published to some 3rd party test reporting site (a thing that
doesn't yet exist). Gerrit has the facility so that we could inject
the dashboard content for this in
Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote on 06/30/2014 06:03:50 AM:
From:
Sean Dague s...@dague.net
To:
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org,
Date:
06/30/2014 06:09 AM
Subject:
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] 3rd Party CI vs. Gerrit
2014-06-30 19:17 GMT+04:00 Kurt Taylor krtay...@us.ibm.com:
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote on 06/27/2014 12:33:48 PM:
If it really does show up right in Gerrit as if it were integrated,
then that would be fine with me. I think the biggest problem we have
right now is that a lot of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There is a similar old bug for that, with a good suggestion for how
it could possibly be done:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/1251758
This isn't what I'm talking about. What we need is, for each new
patchset on a given change, an
On 6/28/14 10:40 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
An alternate approach would be to have third-party CI systems register
jobs with OpenStack's Zuul rather than using their own account. This
would mean only a single report of all jobs (upstream and 3rd-party)
per-patchset. It significantly reduces
Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
I would be good with Jenkins not reporting on a successful run, or if
rather than a comment from Jenkins the vote in the table had a link to
the test results, so if you get a -1 from Jenkins you can follow the
link from the -1 in the table
It's clear that lots of projects want 3rd Party CI information on
patches. But it's also clear that 6 months into this experiment with a
lot of 3rd Party CI systems, the Gerrit UI is really not great for this.
A couple of things have fallen out of this. 3rd Party CI bots outnumber
Human comments
On 27/06/14 07:40 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
It's clear that lots of projects want 3rd Party CI information on
patches. But it's also clear that 6 months into this experiment with a
lot of 3rd Party CI systems, the Gerrit UI is really not great for this.
A couple of things have fallen out of
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 07:40:51AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
It's clear that lots of projects want 3rd Party CI information on
patches. But it's also clear that 6 months into this experiment with a
lot of 3rd Party CI systems, the Gerrit UI is really not great for this.
That's an understatement
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 07:40:51AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
It's clear that lots of projects want 3rd Party CI information on
patches. But it's also clear that 6 months into this experiment with a
lot of 3rd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What if 3rd Party CI didn't vote in Gerrit? What if it instead
published to some 3rd party test reporting site (a thing that
doesn't yet exist). Gerrit has the facility so that we could inject
the dashboard content for this in Gerrit in a little
Sean, there is a proposal[1] in upstream gerrit to fix this issue. David's
proposal is to make Gerrit handle multiple notifications channels per
project which would allow us to treat bot notifications differently than
human notifications. He has the same problem as we do, most of his builds
are
On 06/27/2014 02:19 PM, Zaro wrote:
Sean, there is a proposal[1] in upstream gerrit to fix this issue.
David's proposal is to make Gerrit handle multiple notifications
channels per project which would allow us to treat bot notifications
differently than human notifications. He has the same
David did suggest adding REST api endpoints to get data for each channel so
it doesn't necessarily require you to even use the gerrit web ui. However
the web UI's old screen is pretty much dead so I assume the presentation
would only be available in new change screen. I know Openstackers have
I do quite like the conflicts with part, I was thinking about that the
other day. That would be hugely useful.
-Sean
On 06/27/2014 02:56 PM, Zaro wrote:
David did suggest adding REST api endpoints to get data for each channel
so it doesn't necessarily require you to even use the gerrit
Sean Dague s...@dague.net writes:
It seems what we actually want is a dashboard of these results. We want
them available when we go to Gerrit, but we don't want them in Gerrit
itself.
I agree with most of what you wrote, particularly that we want them
available in Gerrit and with a sensible
40 matches
Mail list logo
