On 8/26/2015 9:15 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08/26/2015 03:34 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/25/2015 08:59 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:


On 8/25/2015 10:04 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi, [...] Anyway, the result is that mock 1.3 broke 9
packages at least in Kilo, currently in Sid [1]. Maybe, as
packages gets rebuilt, I'll get more bug reports. This
really, is a depressing situation. [...]

Some ppl on IRC explained to me what the situation was, which
is that the mock API has been wrongly used, and some tests were
in fact wrongly passing, so indeed, this is one of the rare
cases where breaking the API probably made sense.

As it doesn't bring anything to repair these tests, I'm just
not running them in Kilo from now on, using something like
this:

--subunit 'tests\.unit\.(?!.*foo.*)

Please comment if you think that's the wrong way to go. Also,
has some of these been repaired in the stable/kilo branch?

I seem to remember some projects backporting the test fixes to
stable/kilo but ultimately we just capped mock on the stable
branches to avoid this issue there.

I really wish that nothing of this kind was even possible. Adding
such an upper cap is like hiding the dust under the carpet: it
doesn't remove the issue, it just hides it. We really have too much
of these in OpenStack. Fixing broken tests was the correct thing to
do, IMO.


I think whoever is interested in raising a cap is free to send patches
and get it up. I don't think those patches would be blocked.

Ihar
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV3coRAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57FBsH/05W80HXQRLlGARiN4K5SA8T
kC8dVlKx7OPcg/XY77GMHn/oacPErXcPQFreWW1EHwFpIFePNroE1mrwZjIkgy5L
ehsn/I7B3lhKLq3yqlE+MdyoeCcgXBW/Hi4DzMGEu+Os59dYc+LrO5vAjEieoU50
SsqfsHBoJo4SjtgoJdp0Q/dlaVlXuetCF5I/DWvhvJVrYuJBHIFjORTjkc6RZOOU
Ke+bBRjbxJFYcTDWlE8AHzssfIDCnYlDv9+pFv+JO+tCqxIhiOraVxq+sD60fJww
pExbjkZikhrRaqzzdLnYm0/ZDNzPS/UO+JSEZPFwu/pUGc7ztB/7+1PFf2oyftI=
=TEyG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Right, there is a very small team of people that actually care about and try to maintain stable branches for all projects and when things are completely wedged, our first response is to get things unwedged as soon as possible. This is generally because the longer you wait to get stable branches fixes, as soon as you fix the first problem there is a new problem and you're just constantly thrashing on digging out.

If there was a more community-wide concerted all-hands-on-deck effort when it comes to gate breakages and stable branch maintenance, then we would maybe be less prone to cap dependencies.

--

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to