And just when the patch was only missing a +A, another bug slipped in! The nova patch to fix it is available at [1]
And while we're there, it won't be a bad idea to also push the neutron full job, as non-voting, into the integrated gate [2] Thanks in advance, (especially to the nova and infra cores who'll review these patches!) Salvatore [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113554/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113562/ On 7 August 2014 17:51, Salvatore Orlando <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On 10 July 2014 11:27, Ihar Hrachyshka <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> >>>> > >> >> 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 [email protected] >>>> > >> >>> >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev >>>> > >> > mailing list [email protected] >>>> > >> > >>>> 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 >>>> > >> [email protected] >>>> > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> > [email protected] >>>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
