On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:31:40AM +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04 2016, Steven Hardy wrote: > > Hi, > > > Firstly, I'm very sorry for the breakage here, and I agree that in general > > a quick-revert is the best policy when something like this happens. > > No problem Steven, shit happens. > > It'd be even better if Heat'd move to a devstack plugin to limit this > kind of high level latency. Just by curiosity, is there a plan for that?
Yes, it was discussed in a recent Heat meeting, and IIRC pas-ha was going to work on it, I agree it's a good idea and should enable more responsive updates/fixes to our devstack config. > > I'm a little unclear how this occurred tho, since I had a clear CI run on > > this patch: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/256315/ > > I think the dsvm tests are not the same that we run on telemetry side: > we run it with the Gnocchi backend, whereas you're likely using the > (old) Ceilometer backend. And that's the Gnocchi backend that has been > broken by the original devstack change from what I saw. > > Maybe Heat should also run this job, WDYT? We'll have to look into that - I was assuming all our jobs should move to using Gnocchi by default now? Rabi has acutally pointed out that we'd already skipped the heat alarm test due to a previous issue (doh!) which is probably why my Depends-On didn't catch this regression, so at least that is now understood :) Steve __________________________________________________________________________ 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