Thanks for fixing this On 09/03/2016 19:55, "dev on behalf of Joe Stringer" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Andy, thanks for fixing this. > >On 9 March 2016 at 18:05, Andy Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Daniele Di Proietto <[email protected]> > >As a general rule, it's nice to have the commit id direct in the >message to show the upstream commit being backported. I've been doing >it like this at the start of the message: > >Upstream: e88b97cbbec3497a2272ace805255d1c87230743 > >This helps reviewers compare the original commit with the backport to >look for discrepancies. > >> Recently some testcases have been failing in travis because of a warning >> related to the use of an L3 device (OpenVZ specific) inside the workers. The fix is the same (moving to the container infrastructure), but the issue is different: the new "sudo" travis infrastructure has been moved to GCE, which doesn't have ipv6 https://blog.travis-ci.com/2015-11-27-moving-to-a-more-elastic-future Maybe you want to mention the problem in the backported commit message? >> >> To get travis tests working again we can move to the newer container >> infrastructure: this commit does that. >> >> The disadvantage is that there's no sudo access anymore, but we can >> install packages with the apt plugin, and we shouldn't use root for >> anything else >> >> Also, since we're building DPDK with vhost-user (not vhost-cuse), >> libfuse-dev is not needed anymore. This was the case for master, but it's not the case for this backported commit. Do you think we should remove this line (I'm not sure what's the best procedure for backports). >> >> Tested-at: https://travis-ci.org/ddiproietto/ovs/builds/81764972 >> >> [back ported to branch-2.4 by azhou] >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniele Di Proietto <[email protected]> >> CC: Joe Stringer <[email protected]> >> Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Zhou <[email protected]> > ><snip> > >> @@ -26,4 +38,4 @@ script: ./.travis/build.sh $OPTS >> notifications: >> email: >> recipients: >> - - secure: >>KnZ6yDXDcC4VoiI04ZYR4sRTln7q16aXA7gVBa/M1jPWxl3BiTi+4idVE5bgrB1AK5iUwUXN6 >>LQpjOdFDw1U/D+sKt+xmVG5MyLaTYIFp1TUOgtSGeiG3IUhpu125PN1i2EhXNqANyWyStCiIS >>DvJkDe4D/tbBehip1AEBuQONk= >> + - [email protected] > >This fragment wasn't in the original commit... was it intended? >(should it be a separate backport commit?) I think it should be OK to backport this on branch-2.4. Most of the travis infrastructure code should be kept in sync between the branches. It could be done in a separate commit, I'm happy either way Acked-by: Daniele Di Proietto <[email protected]> > >Other than this, LGTM. > >Acked-by: Joe Stringer <[email protected]> >_______________________________________________ >dev mailing list >[email protected] >http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
