On 2015-06-09 05:49:35 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
> I already said that the git entry should be to a local zuul-cloner
> cloned repo. Kevin's *current* 3rd-party CI solution is doing
> full-clones each time.
Aah, yep, I missed in his reply that it would be a local repo on the
filesystem
On 9 June 2015 at 04:19, Doug Wiegley wrote:
>
>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-06-08 13:29:50 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
>> [...]
>>> However, we are going to move from test-requirements.txt to setup.cfg
>>> eventually, but thats a separate transition
On 9 June 2015 at 03:58, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-06-08 13:29:50 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
> [...]
>> However, we are going to move from test-requirements.txt to setup.cfg
>> eventually, but thats a separate transition - and one could still use
>> test-requirements.txt there to p
> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
> On 2015-06-08 13:29:50 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
> [...]
>> However, we are going to move from test-requirements.txt to setup.cfg
>> eventually, but thats a separate transition - and one could still use
>> test-requirements.txt t
On 2015-06-08 13:29:50 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
[...]
> However, we are going to move from test-requirements.txt to setup.cfg
> eventually, but thats a separate transition - and one could still use
> test-requirements.txt there to provide git references.
Except please don't. If you put
On 8 June 2015 at 11:16, Kevin Benton wrote:
> It wasn't using zuul at all. It's a super short bash script that just clones
> the 3rd party repo, checks out the patch, and then runs 'tox -epy27'.
>
> I misspoke in my previous email, because it was setup to use
> test-requirements.txt to pull in ne
It wasn't using zuul at all. It's a super short bash script that just
clones the 3rd party repo, checks out the patch, and then runs 'tox
-epy27'.
I misspoke in my previous email, because it was setup to use
test-requirements.txt to pull in neutron. Did I understand your other email
that implied t
On 5 June 2015 at 04:54, Kevin Benton wrote:
> +1. I had setup a CI for a third-party plugin and the easiest thing to do to
> make sure it was running tests with the latest copy of the corresponding
> neutron branch was to put the git URL in requirements.txt.
>
> We wanted to always test the lates
On 4 June 2015 at 21:06, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 06/03/2015 11:08 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
...
>> One question that this raises, and this is why I wrote the email:
>> is there any need to support this at all:- can we say that we won't
>> u
+1. I had setup a CI for a third-party plugin and the easiest thing to do
to make sure it was running tests with the latest copy of the corresponding
neutron branch was to put the git URL in requirements.txt.
We wanted to always test the latest code so we had early detection of
failures. What's th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/03/2015 11:08 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> Hi, right now there is a little used (e.g. its not in any active
> project these days) previous feature of pbr/global-requirements:
> we supported things that setuptools does not: to whit, tarball and
On 06/03/2015 11:08 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> Hi, right now there is a little used (e.g. its not in any active
> project these days) previous feature of pbr/global-requirements: we
> supported things that setuptools does not: to whit, tarball and git
> requirements.
>
> Now, these things are sup
Hi, right now there is a little used (e.g. its not in any active
project these days) previous feature of pbr/global-requirements: we
supported things that setuptools does not: to whit, tarball and git
requirements.
Now, these things are supported by pip, so the implementation involved
recursing in
13 matches
Mail list logo
