On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16 June 2014 15:58, Kyle Mestery <mest...@noironetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I will probably be unable, as usual, to attend today's CI meeting (falls
>> > right around my dinner time).
>> > I think it's a good idea to starting keeping track of the status of the
>> > various CI systems, but I feel the etherpad will not work very well in
>> > the
>> > long term.
>> >
>> Agreed. The etherpad was a starting point, I'll move this information
>> to a wiki page later today.
>>
>> > However, it would be great if we could start devising a solution for
>> > having
>> > "health" reports from the various CI systems.
>> > This report should report the following kind of information:
>> > - timestamp of last run
>> > - timestamp of last vote (a system might start job which then get
>> > aborted
>> > for CI infra problems)
>> > - % of success vs failures (not sure how important is that one but
>> > provides
>> > a metric of comparison with upstream jenkins)
>> > - % of disagreements with jenkins (this might allow us to quickly spot
>> > those
>> > CI systems which are randomly -1'ing patches)
>> >
>> > The percentage metrics might be taken over a 48 hours or 7 days
>> > interval, or
>> > both.
>> > Does this idea sound reasonable?
>> >
>> This sounds like a very good idea. Now we just need to find someone
>> with the time to write this. :)
>>
>> > Also, regarding [1]. I agree that more is always better...  but I would
>> > like
>> > a minimum required set of tests to be enforced.
>> > Is this something that can be achieved?
>> >
>> I think the tests that are in there are the minimum tests I'd like to
>> see run. I'll clarify the language on the wiki page a bit.
>
>
> If the intention is to have the minimum set of test "we'd like to see run"
> then it's perfect!
> I was trying to say we should impose that set as a minimum requirement...
>
+1 on both fronts.

>>
>>
>> > Salvatore
>> >
>> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronThirdPartyTesting
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 16 June 2014 07:07, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamam...@valinux.co.jp> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hi,
>> >>
>> >> > My initial analysis of Neutron 3rd Party CI is here [1]. This was
>> >> > somewhat correlated with information from DriverLog [2], which was
>> >> > helpful to put this together.
>> >>
>> >> i updated the etherpad for ofagent.
>> >> currently a single CI system is running tests for both of ofagent and
>> >> ryu.
>> >> is it ok?
>> >>
>> >> YAMAMOTO Takashi
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to