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? > > > 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? > > > Given that the review latency on Devstack is quite high, it seems possible > > we'll land (2) before (1) lands, but if not then I'll re-propose it and > > hopefully figure out where I went wrong with Depends-On to confirm all is > > fixed before it lands. > > Yeah, whatever fixes the issue I'm ok with. :-) If you can fix Heat > faster, that'd be even cooler.
Ok, so status update, the relevant Heat fixes have landed (thanks to ramishra and huangtianhua for investigating/fixing!): https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bug/1529058 I've rechecked https://review.openstack.org/#/c/261923/1 which will hopefully show the issue is resolved and the devstack revert can be abandoned. Thanks all for your patience while we worked this issue out. Steve __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
