On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:35:43PM -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > On 06/10/2016 05:48 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 06/10/2016 08:41 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > >> On 2016-06-10 11:49:12 +0100 (+0100), Miles Gould wrote: > >>> On 09/06/16 23:21, Jay Faulkner wrote: > >>>> There was some discussion about whether or not the Ironic grenade job > >>>> should be in the check pipeline (even as -nv) for grenade, > >>> > >>> Not having this would mean that changes to grenade could silently break > >>> Ironic's CI, right? That sounds really bad. > >> > >> That's like saying it's really bad that changes to devstack could > >> silently break devstack-based jobs for random projects, and so they > >> should be tested against every one of those jobs. At some point you > >> have to draw a line between running a reasonably representative > >> sample and running so many jobs that you'll never be able to merge > >> another change again (because even very small nondeterministic > >> failure rates compound to make that impossible at a certain scale). > > > > Nothing should be voting in check in grenade that requires a plugin. > > > > I'm fine with a few things in check nv if they are doing something out > > of the ordinary that we think needs to be kept on top of. I also expect > > that ironic folks are going to watch for those failures, and say, with > > -1/+1 CR, when they are legit and when it was off the rails. A non > > voting job that doesn't have domain experts validating the content > > regularly with CR means it gets ignored if it fails a bunch. > > > > I'd like to see this job running in the grenade check queue so we can watch it > there, and trace back to anything that affects us in unexpected ways. As Sean > points out, it should not be made voting in grenade's check queue.
FWIW, Sean approved that this morning :) > > It _should_ be made voting in Ironic's queue as soon as we have gathered > stability data for it. I'd love to see that get turned on in a week. With the > current patch volume, I think we'll be able to get plenty of stability data in > that time. ++ agree completely. // jim > > --devananda > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
