With the origin image last week, it was persistent until we specified building from the v1.2.0 tag instead of "latest". With this image it has happened twice in a row. I'll try another... https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test-origin-aggregated-logging/382/
May be able to reproduce manually, we will see. What would it look like if docker is flaking? On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Clayton Coleman <[email protected]> wrote: > We are building and pushing our images with Docker 1.10 for Origin (but > possibly not in all AMIs, depending on the test job). The last set of > pushed images (alpha.1) was pushed from Docker 1.9. > > This might just be docker flaking, but we'd probably need more info from > the Docker logs. > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Luke Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've seen this twice in logging tests, in the ruby STI builder today and >> in the origin image last week, so I'm wondering if it's a trend. >> >> >> https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test-origin-aggregated-logging/381/artifact/origin/artifacts/logs/container-ruby-sample-build-1-build-sti-build.log >> >> Pulling Docker image >> centos/ruby-22-centos7@sha256:e5ebb014d02b5a7faa7b83f6c58f4cc4eb9892edbf61172e59f2ae1999982dc2 >> ... >> I0608 01:08:34.707737 1 glog.go:50] An error was received from the >> PullImage call: manifest unknown: manifest unknown >> >> The closest thing I could find under issues is >> https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/9122 where it was reportedly >> due to the image being pushed by docker 1.10. >> >> Is someone pushing our images to dockerhub with docker 1.10? >> >> Builds run on CentOS7, don't think that AMI has docker 1.10 yet. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
