On 19/08/14 13:07, Giulio Fidente wrote: > On 08/19/2014 12:41 PM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I'd like to firm up our plans around the ci jobs we discussed at the >> tripleo sprint, at the time we jotted down the various jobs on an >> etherpad, to better visualize the matrix of coverage I've put it into a >> spreadsheet[1]. Before we go about making these changes I'd like to go >> through a few questions for firm things up > > hi Derek! > >> 1. Did we miss any jobs that we should have included? >> gfidente mentioned on IRC about adding blockstoragescale and >> swiftstoragescale jobs into the mix, should we add this to the matrix so >> at each is tested on at least one of the existing jobs? > > thanks for bringing this up indeed > > mi idea is the following: given we have support for blockstorage nodes > scaling in devtest now and will (hopefully soon) have the option to > scale swift nodes too, it'd be nice to test an OC where we have volumes > and objects stored on those separate nodes > > this would test our ability to deploy such a configuration and we have > tests for this set in place already as our user image is now booting > from volume and glance is backed by swift > > so maybe a nonha job with 1 external blockstorage and 2 external swift > nodes would be a nice to have?
I've added block scaling and swift scaling to the matrix and have included each in one of the tests, this should give us coverage on both, so I think we can do this without adding a new job. > >> 3. Are there any jobs here we should remove? > > I was suspicious about the -juno and -icehouse jobs. > > Are these jobs supposed to be test lates 'stable' (juno) and 'stable -1' > (icehouse) releases, with all other jobs deploying from 'K trunk? I'm having difficulty recalling what we decided at the sprint, but long term latest stable sounds like a must, anybody know where the notes are on this? > >> Once anybody with an opinion has had had a chance to look over the >> spreadsheet, I'll start to make changes to our existing jobs so that >> they match jobs on the spreadsheet and then add the new jobs (one at a >> time) >> >> Feel free to add comments to the spreadsheet or reply here. > > One last comment, maybe a bit OT but I'm raising it here to see what is > the other people opinion: how about we modify the -ha job so that at > some point we actually kill one of the controllers and spawn a second > user image? _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
