Thanks Armando,

The fix for the bug you pointed out was the reason of the failure we've
been seeing.
The follow-up patch merged and I've removed the wip status from the patch
for the full job [1]

Salvatore

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/


On 7 August 2014 16:50, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Salvatore,
>
> I did notice the issue and I flagged this bug report:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1352141
>
> I'll follow up.
>
> Cheers,
> Armando
>
>
> On 7 August 2014 01:34, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
>> I had to put the patch back on WIP because yesterday a bug causing a 100%
>> failure rate slipped in.
>> It should be an easy fix, and I'm already working on it.
>> Situations like this, exemplified by [1] are a bit frustrating for all
>> the people working on improving neutron quality.
>> Now, if you allow me a little rant, as Neutron is receiving a lot of
>> attention for all the ongoing discussion regarding this group policy stuff,
>> would it be possible for us to receive a bit of attention to ensure both
>> the full job and the grenade one are switched to voting before the juno-3
>> review crunch.
>>
>> We've already had the attention of the QA team, it would probably good if
>> we could get the attention of the infra core team to ensure:
>> 1) the jobs are also deemed by them stable enough to be switched to voting
>> 2) the relevant patches for openstack-infra/config are reviewed
>>
>> Regards,
>> Salvatore
>>
>> [1]
>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJtZXNzYWdlOlwie3UnbWVzc2FnZSc6IHUnRmxvYXRpbmcgaXAgcG9vbCBub3QgZm91bmQuJywgdSdjb2RlJzogNDAwfVwiIEFORCBidWlsZF9uYW1lOlwiY2hlY2stdGVtcGVzdC1kc3ZtLW5ldXRyb24tZnVsbFwiIEFORCBidWlsZF9icmFuY2g6XCJtYXN0ZXJcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiMTcyODAwIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7InVzZXJfaW50ZXJ2YWwiOjB9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTQwNzQwMDExMDIwNywibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ==
>>
>>
>> On 23 July 2014 14:59, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:40:02PM +0200, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>> > Here I am again bothering you with the state of the full job for
>>> Neutron.
>>> >
>>> > The patch for fixing an issue in nova's server external events
>>> extension
>>> > merged yesterday [1]
>>> > We do not have yet enough data points to make a reliable assessment,
>>> but of
>>> > out 37 runs since the patch merged, we had "only" 5 failures, which
>>> puts
>>> > the failure rate at about 13%
>>> >
>>> > This is ugly compared with the current failure rate of the smoketest
>>> (3%).
>>> > However, I think it is good enough to start making the full job voting
>>> at
>>> > least for neutron patches.
>>> > Once we'll be able to bring down failure rate to anything around 5%,
>>> we can
>>> > then enable the job everywhere.
>>>
>>> I think that sounds like a good plan. I'm also curious how the failure
>>> rates
>>> compare to the other non-neutron jobs, that might be a useful comparison
>>> too
>>> for deciding when to flip the switch everywhere.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > As much as I hate asymmetric gating, I think this is a good compromise
>>> for
>>> > avoiding developers working on other projects are badly affected by the
>>> > higher failure rate in the neutron full job.
>>>
>>> So we discussed this during the project meeting a couple of weeks ago
>>> [3] and
>>> there was a general agreement that doing it asymmetrically at first
>>> would be
>>> better. Everyone should be wary of the potential harms with doing it
>>> asymmetrically and I think priority will be given to fixing issues that
>>> block
>>> the neutron gate should they arise.
>>>
>>> > I will therefore resume work on [2] and remove the WIP status as soon
>>> as I
>>> > can confirm a failure rate below 15% with more data points.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Thanks for keeping on top of this Salvatore. It'll be good to finally be
>>> at
>>> least partially gating with a parallel job.
>>>
>>> -Matt Treinish
>>>
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103865/
>>> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/
>>> [3]
>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-07-08-21.03.log.html#l-28
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 10 July 2014 11:49, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 10 July 2014 11:27, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> > >> Hash: SHA512
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On 10/07/14 11:07, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>> > >> > The patch for bug 1329564 [1] merged about 11 hours ago. From [2]
>>> > >> > it seems there has been an improvement on the failure rate, which
>>> > >> > seem to have dropped to 25% from over 40%. Still, since the patch
>>> > >> > merged there have been 11 failures already in the full job out of
>>> > >> > 42 jobs executed in total. Of these 11 failures: - 3 were due to
>>> > >> > problems in the patches being tested - 1 had the same root cause
>>> as
>>> > >> > bug 1329564. Indeed the related job started before the patch
>>> merged
>>> > >> > but finished after. So this failure "doesn't count". - 1 was for
>>> an
>>> > >> > issue introduced about a week ago which actually causing a lot of
>>> > >> > failures in the full job [3]. Fix should be easy for it; however
>>> > >> > given the nature of the test we might even skip it while it's
>>> > >> > fixed. - 3 were for bug 1333654 [4]; for this bug discussion is
>>> > >> > going on on gerrit regarding the most suitable approach. - 3 were
>>> > >> > for lock wait timeout errors. Several people in the community are
>>> > >> > already working on them. I hope this will raise the profile of
>>> this
>>> > >> > issue (maybe some might think it's just a corner case as it rarely
>>> > >> > causes failures in smoke jobs, whereas the truth is that error
>>> > >> > occurs but it does not cause job failure because the jobs isn't
>>> > >> > parallel).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Can you give directions on where to find those lock timeout
>>> failures?
>>> > >> I'd like to check logs to see whether they have the same nature as
>>> > >> most other failures (e.g. improper yield under transaction).
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > This logstash query will give you all occurences of lock wait timeout
>>> > > issues: message:"(OperationalError) (1205, 'Lock wait timeout
>>> exceeded; try
>>> > > restarting transaction')" AND tags:"screen-q-svc.txt"
>>> > >
>>> > > The fact that in most cases the build succeeds anyway is misleading,
>>> > > because in many cases these errors occur in RPC handling between
>>> agents and
>>> > > servers, and therefore are not detected by tempest. The neutron full
>>> job,
>>> > > which is parallel, increases their occurrence because of parallelism
>>> - and
>>> > > since API request too occur concurrently it also yields a higher
>>> tempest
>>> > > build failure rate.
>>> > >
>>> > > However, as I argued in the past the "lock wait timeout" error should
>>> > > always be treated as an error condition.
>>> > > Eugene has already classified lock wait timeout failures and filed
>>> bugs
>>> > > for them a few weeks ago.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Summarizing, I think time is not yet ripe to enable the full job;
>>> > >> > once bug 1333654 is fixed, we should go for it. AFAIK there is no
>>> > >> > way for working around it in gate tests other than disabling
>>> > >> > nova/neutron event reporting, which I guess we don't want to do.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Salvatore
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105239 [2]
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJidWlsZF9zdGF0dXM6RkFJTFVSRSBBTkQgbWVzc2FnZTpcIkZpbmlzaGVkOiBGQUlMVVJFXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX25hbWU6XCJjaGVjay10ZW1wZXN0LWRzdm0tbmV1dHJvbi1mdWxsXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX2JyYW5jaDpcIm1hc3RlclwiIiwiZmllbGRzIjpbXSwib2Zmc2V0IjowLCJ0aW1lZnJhbWUiOiIxNzI4MDAiLCJncmFwaG1vZGUiOiJjb3VudCIsInRpbWUiOnsiZnJvbSI6IjIwMTQtMDctMTBUMDA6MjQ6NTcrMDA6MDAiLCJ0byI6IjIwMTQtMDctMTBUMDg6MjQ6NTMrMDA6MDAiLCJ1c2VyX2ludGVydmFsIjoiMCJ9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTQwNDk4MjU2MjM2OCwibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ==
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> [3]
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJtZXNzYWdlOlwiSFRUUEJhZFJlcXVlc3Q6IFVucmVjb2duaXplZCBhdHRyaWJ1dGUocykgJ21lbWJlciwgdmlwLCBwb29sLCBoZWFsdGhfbW9uaXRvcidcIiBBTkQgdGFnczpcInNjcmVlbi1xLXN2Yy50eHRcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiY3VzdG9tIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7ImZyb20iOiIyMDE0LTA3LTAxVDA4OjU5OjAxKzAwOjAwIiwidG8iOiIyMDE0LTA3LTEwVDA4OjU5OjAxKzAwOjAwIiwidXNlcl9pbnRlcnZhbCI6IjAifSwic3RhbXAiOjE0MDQ5ODI3OTc3ODAsIm1vZGUiOiIiLCJhbmFseXplX2ZpZWxkIjoiIn0=
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1333654
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On 2 July 2014 17:57, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com>
>>> > >> > wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >> Hi again,
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> From my analysis most of the failures affecting the neutron full
>>> > >> >> job are because of bugs [1] and [2] for which patch [3] and [4]
>>> > >> >> have been proposed. Both patches address the nova side of the
>>> > >> >> neutron/nova notification system for vif plugging. It is worth
>>> > >> >> noting that these bugs did manifest only in the neutron full job
>>> > >> >> not because of its "full" nature, but because of its "parallel"
>>> > >> >> nature.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Openstackers with a good memory will probably remember we fixed
>>> > >> >> the parallel job back in January, before the massive "kernel bug"
>>> > >> >> gate outage [5]. However, since parallel testing was
>>> > >> >> unfortunately never enabled on the smoke job we run on the gate,
>>> > >> >> we allowed new bugs to slip in. For this reason I would recommend
>>> > >> >> the following: - once patches [3] and [4] have been reviewed and
>>> > >> >> merge, re-assess neutron full job failure rate over a period of
>>> > >> >> 48 hours (72 if the period includes at least 24 hours within a
>>> > >> >> weekend - GMT time) - turn neutron full job to voting if the
>>> > >> >> previous step reveals a failure rate below 10%, otherwise go back
>>> > >> >> to the drawing board
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> In my opinion whether the full job should be enabled in an
>>> > >> >> asymmetric fashion or not should be a decision for the QA and
>>> > >> >> Infra teams. Once the full job is made voting there will
>>> > >> >> inevitably be a higher failure rate. An asymmetric gate will not
>>> > >> >> cause backlogs on other projects, so less angry people, but as
>>> > >> >> Matt said it will still allow other bugs to slip in. Personally
>>> > >> >> I'm ok either way.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> The reason why we're expecting a higher failure rate on the full
>>> > >> >> job is that we have already observed that some "known" bugs, such
>>> > >> >> as the various lock timeout issues affecting neutron tend to show
>>> > >> >> with a higher frequency on the full job because of its parallel
>>> > >> >> nature.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Salvatore
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> [1] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1329546 [2]
>>> > >> >> https://launchpad.net/bugs/1333654 [3]
>>> > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99182/ [4]
>>> > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103865/ [5]
>>> > >> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1273386
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> On 25 June 2014 23:38, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org>
>>> > >> >> wrote:
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:14:16PM +0200, Salvatore Orlando
>>> > >> >>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>> There is a long standing patch [1] for enabling the neutron
>>> > >> >>>> full job. Little before the Icehouse release date, when we
>>> > >> >>>> first pushed this, the neutron full job had a failure rate of
>>> > >> >>>> less than 10%. However, since has come by, and perceived
>>> > >> >>>> failure rates were higher, we ran again this analysis.
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> So I'm not exactly a fan of having the gates be asymmetrical.
>>> > >> >>> It's very easy for breaks to slip in blocking the neutron gate
>>> > >> >>> if it's not voting everywhere. Especially because I think most
>>> > >> >>> people have been trained to ignore the full job because it's
>>> > >> >>> been nonvoting for so long. Is there a particular reason we
>>> > >> >>> just don't switch everything all at once? I think having a
>>> > >> >>> little bit of friction everywhere during the migration is fine.
>>> > >> >>> Especially if we do it way before a milestone. (as opposed to
>>> > >> >>> the original parallel switch which was right before H-3)
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Here are the findings in a nutshell. 1) If we were to enable
>>> > >> >>>> the job today we might expect about a 3-fold increase in
>>> > >> >>>> neutron job failures when compared with the smoke test.
>>> > >> >>> This is
>>> > >> >>>> unfortunately not acceptable and we therefore need to
>>> > >> >>>> identify and fix
>>> > >> >>> the
>>> > >> >>>> issues causing the additional failure rate. 2) However this
>>> > >> >>>> also puts us in a position where if we wait until the failure
>>> > >> >>>> rate drops under a given threshold we might end up chasing a
>>> > >> >>> moving
>>> > >> >>>> target as new issues might be introduced at any time since
>>> > >> >>>> the job is
>>> > >> >>> not
>>> > >> >>>> voting. 3) When it comes to evaluating failure rates for a
>>> > >> >>>> non voting job,
>>> > >> >>> taking
>>> > >> >>>> the rough numbers does not mean anything, as that will take
>>> > >> >>>> in account patches 'in progress' which end up failing the
>>> > >> >>>> tests because of
>>> > >> >>> problems in
>>> > >> >>>> the patch themselves.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Well, that was pretty much a lot for a "nutshell"; however if
>>> > >> >>>> you're not yet bored to death please go on reading.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> The data in this post are a bit skewed because of a rise in
>>> > >> >>>> neutron job failures in the past 36 hours. However, this rise
>>> > >> >>>> affects both the full
>>> > >> >>> and
>>> > >> >>>> the smoke job so it does not invalidate what we say here. The
>>> > >> >>>> results
>>> > >> >>> shown
>>> > >> >>>> below are representative of the gate status 12 hours ago.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> - Neutron smoke job failure rates (all queues) 24 hours:
>>> > >> >>>> 22.4% 48 hours: 19.3% 7 days: 8.96% - Neutron smoke job
>>> > >> >>>> failure rates (gate queue only): 24 hours: 10.41% 48 hours:
>>> > >> >>>> 10.20% 7 days: 3.53% - Neutron full job failure rate (check
>>> > >> >>>> queue only as it's non voting): 24 hours: 31.54% 48 hours:
>>> > >> >>>> 28.87% 7 days: 25.73%
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Check/Gate Ratio between neutron smoke failures 24 hours:
>>> > >> >>>> 2.15 48 hours: 1.89 7 days: 2.53
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Estimated job failure rate for neutron full job if it were to
>>> > >> >>>> run in the gate: 24 hours: 14.67% 48 hours: 15.27% 7 days:
>>> > >> >>>> 10.16%
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> The numbers are therefore not terrible, but definitely not
>>> > >> >>>> good enough; looking at the last 7 days the full job will
>>> > >> >>>> have a failure rate about 3 times higher than the smoke job.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> We then took, as it's usual for us when we do this kind of
>>> > >> >>>> evaluation, a window with a reasonable number of failures (41
>>> > >> >>>> in our case), and
>>> > >> >>> analysed
>>> > >> >>>> them in detail.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Of these 41 failures 17 were excluded because of infra
>>> > >> >>>> problems, patches 'in progress', or other transient failures;
>>> > >> >>>> considering that over the
>>> > >> >>> same
>>> > >> >>>> period of time 160 full job runs succeeded this would leave
>>> > >> >>>> us with 24 failures on 184 run, and therefore a failure rate
>>> > >> >>>> of 13.04%, which not
>>> > >> >>> far
>>> > >> >>>> from the estimate.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Let's consider now these 24 'real' falures: A)  2 were for
>>> > >> >>>> the SSH timeout (8.33% of failures, 1.08% of total full
>>> > >> >>> job
>>> > >> >>>> runs). These specific failure is being analyzed to see if a
>>> > >> >>>> specific fingerprint can be found B) 2  (8.33% of failures,
>>> > >> >>>> 1.08% of total full job runs) were for a
>>> > >> >>> failure
>>> > >> >>>> in test load balancer basic, which is actually a test design
>>> > >> >>>> issue and
>>> > >> >>> is
>>> > >> >>>> already being addressed [2] C) 7 (29.16% of failures, 3.81%
>>> > >> >>>> of total full job runs) were for an
>>> > >> >>> issue
>>> > >> >>>> while resizing a server, which has been already spotted and
>>> > >> >>>> has a bug in progress [3] D) 5 (20.83% of failures, 2.72% of
>>> > >> >>>> total full job runs) manifested as a failure in
>>> > >> >>>> test_server_address; however the actual root cause was being
>>> > >> >>>> masked by [4]. A bug has been filed [5]; this is the most
>>> > >> >>>> worrying one
>>> > >> >>> in
>>> > >> >>>> my opinion as there are many cases where the fault happens
>>> > >> >>>> but does not trigger a failure because of the way tempest
>>> > >> >>>> tests are designed. E) 6 are because of our friend lock wait
>>> > >> >>>> timeout. This was initially
>>> > >> >>> filed
>>> > >> >>>> as [6] but since then we've closed it to file more detailed
>>> > >> >>>> bug reports
>>> > >> >>> as
>>> > >> >>>> the lock wait timeout can manifest in various places; Eugene
>>> > >> >>>> is leading
>>> > >> >>> the
>>> > >> >>>> effort on this problem with Kevin B.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Summarizing the only failure modes specific to the full job
>>> > >> >>>> seem to be
>>> > >> >>> C &
>>> > >> >>>> D. If we were able to fix those we should reasonably expect a
>>> > >> >>>> failure
>>> > >> >>> rate
>>> > >> >>>> of about 6.5%. That's still almost twice as the smoke job,
>>> > >> >>>> but I deem it acceptable for two reasons: 1- by voting, we
>>> > >> >>>> will avoid new bugs affecting the full job from being
>>> > >> >>>> introduced. it is worth reminding people that any bug
>>> > >> >>>> affecting the full job is likely to affect production
>>> > >> >>>> environments
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> +1, this is a very good point.
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>> 2- patches failing in the gate will spur neutron developers
>>> > >> >>>> to quickly
>>> > >> >>> find
>>> > >> >>>> a fix. Patches failing a non voting job will cause some
>>> > >> >>>> neutron core
>>> > >> >>> team
>>> > >> >>>> members to write long and boring posts to the mailing list.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> Well, you can always hope. :) But, in my experience the error
>>> > >> >>> is often fixed quickly but the lesson isn't learned, so it will
>>> > >> >>> just happen again. That's why I think we should just grit our
>>> > >> >>> teeth and turn it on everywhere.
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>> Salvatore
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/ [2]
>>> > >> >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98065/ [3]
>>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1329546 [4]
>>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/1332414 [5]
>>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1333654 [5]
>>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1283522
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> Very cool, thanks for the update Salvatore. I'm very excited to
>>> > >> >>> get this voting.
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> -Matt Treinish
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> > >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>>> > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>> > >>
>>> > >> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTvlxzAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57FJ8H/i+gPR/VZuWFvkOu7pNTHuSj
>>> > >> 8iSA1LJRGe7I9185Gbh22fVzGlahqDpB2hCJjKtWIcL/ml/pgSNGzafB/DhqUUlL
>>> > >> 4GT1UUHptqlKaNX9GLl9I/bknUBEtpwg3hSBivVdCkRYiVwfX86a2ZeeHaCAONwY
>>> > >> ykhiNgoXhR6mr8oEJEIvtjnTDlodR+1dcEq+Nchf/6Fzd8J29dI2Qu38JkweK/qP
>>> > >> m6koPdKSJFzrneOWMCW0Dta6yBKjb3bMCNJUVO/KSGg+MRuSmrufOmLCW5JFu95S
>>> > >> DWIQSTWs3A+dSy9+xuByClQP9kDpG3aUXxW6uRu5UshHMAF5vLATmdCdK4kBiBY=
>>> > >> =K9qm
>>> > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> > >>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to