Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Updating gerrit jenkins-job-builder-release group members

On 23 May 2018 at 03:17, Sorin Ionuț Sbârnea wrote: > Hi > > Can someone help updating the *jenkins-job-builder-release* group on > gerrit to add two persons to it? Apparently there is no way to raise a CR > to update group membership, or if it is I am unaware about it. >

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [jenkins-job-builder] When will jenkins-job-builder 2.0.0 be released?

m not familiar with JJB internals), but I can do some testing of > patches. So feel free to add me to your gerrit CRs if you think you need > that! > > > Regards, > Artem > > 2017-10-17 18:20 GMT+03:00 Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org>: > >> +1 to that. &

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [jenkins-job-builder] When will jenkins-job-builder 2.0.0 be released?

+1 to that. My org is very much looking forward to the 2.0.0 release as we refuse to use the master stream. I do think work needs to be done to fix the YAML parser issue identified in the linked meeting and consider it blocking as we use this feature heavily in our own instance. It's been slow

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB V2.0 planning

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Wayne Warren <wa...@puppet.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> > wrote: > >> There's 2 patches that need one more core-review to get merged so >> hopefully someone can take

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB V2.0 planning

Hi Everyone, I'd like to keep the momentum of JJB 2.0 work going as we're so close to the finish line. This Friday we're going to continue our sprint in #openstack-sprint for those who can make it. Wayne suggested we send a status to the mailing list for those who can't. To summarize some of the

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB's use of inspect plugin info requires administrator permissions

I took a look at the groovy script idea. I think it might work but would be a bit more involved than the example. It seems Jenkins.instance.pluginManager.plugins simply prints a list of all plugins without their details like version etc... Regards, Thanh On 14 June 2016 at 20:11, Zaro

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB's use of inspect plugin info requires administrator permissions

On 8 June 2016 at 08:51, Darragh Bailey <daragh.bai...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 June 2016 at 21:35, Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Taking a look at the code, I realized the test command allowed spoofing >> of the plugins_info. I thought I'd

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB's use of inspect plugin info requires administrator permissions

solution to the Administrator permissions issue assuming that providing the plugins_info yaml file causes JJB to not query the live Jenkins system for the info. Regards, Thanh On 7 June 2016 at 15:34, Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I've been meaning t

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Fwd: JJB nested template variables

t to look at. Assuming I understand your intent correctly. > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Darragh Bailey <daragh.bai...@gmail.com> > Date: 14 March 2016 at 14:51 > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB nested template variables > To: Thanh Ha <thanh...@linux

[OpenStack-Infra] JJB nested template variables

Hi Everyone, I'm trying to nest template variables and discovered that JJB behaves in a way I didn't expect when a template variable is nested. For example: - project: name: test jobs: - '{name}-verify-{value}-{jdk}' value: - a: jdk: -

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB optional parameters usefulness

On 16 February 2016 at 10:03, Darragh Bailey wrote: > Think it all comes down to the following: > * Need to understand what exactly is happening within Jenkins with > regard to XML updating, clearly not just taking the XML given and > changing to match that, more likely

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB optional parameters usefulness

Bumping since I feel this is an important discussion. Darragh, Wayne, any thoughts on this one? Thanks, Thanh On 8 February 2016 at 10:46, Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I'd like to discuss the usefulness of optional parameters in JJB. W

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB 1.4.0 delete-all no longer deletes jobs

a specific job type if desired. We don't need that parameter for the delete-all command. Regards, Thanh [1] https://review.openstack.org/275993 On 20 January 2016 at 10:16, Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Sure thing, I'll try to find some time this week to investigat

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB 1.4.0 delete-all no longer deletes jobs

use python-jenkins directly. > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> > wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > > > It seems to me that JJB 1.4.0's delete-all function has regressed and no > > longer performs the delete function. Instead it s

[OpenStack-Infra] JJB 1.4.0 delete-all no longer deletes jobs

Hi Everyone, It seems to me that JJB 1.4.0's delete-all function has regressed and no longer performs the delete function. Instead it simply provides the following output and exits without performing any deletes. Sure you want to delete *ALL* jobs from Jenkins server? (including those not

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Regression in JJB 1.4.0 maximum recursion depth exceeded

On 9 January 2016 at 07:10, Darragh Bailey <daragh.bai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Thanh, > > On 8 Jan 2016 21:47, "Thanh Ha" <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > (I truncated some of the repetitive output below) > > > > I just tr

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Regression in JJB 1.4.0 maximum recursion depth exceeded

On 11 January 2016 at 11:03, Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 9 January 2016 at 07:10, Darragh Bailey <daragh.bai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 8 Jan 2016 21:47, "Thanh Ha" <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Regression in JJB 1.4.0 maximum recursion depth exceeded

u using? > > [1] > https://review.openstack.org/gitweb?p=openstack-infra/jenkins-job-builder.git;a=blob;f=jenkins_jobs/cmd.py;h=efafdf05fa35f93a00633489dde160c06930641d;hb=b023d7e23f77e4de33e740dcc37af911e36fb189#l115 > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Thanh Ha <than

[OpenStack-Infra] Regression in JJB 1.4.0 maximum recursion depth exceeded

Hi JJB Devs, We discovered what seems to be a regression with JJB 1.4.0 which after some git bisecting found it was caused by this patch [1]. My Jenkins verify builds are failing to pass due to python runtime error: RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded This error follows what

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Future JJB development

Thanks for posting this. My concern as a consumer of JJB is that reviewers will lose interest in reviewing JJB patches and move on if JJB is no longer a necessary component of OpenStack CI (I feel like we are already seeing this today). A plan is needed to ensure that there are and will continue