Thanks Mike for the heads up
I fixed it for GlusterFS CI [1]
Post the fix, glusterfs CI jobs are running fine [2] See Jul 10, 10:43 AM
onwards
thanx,
deepak
[1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200399/2
[2]:
https://jenkins07.openstack.org/job/check-tempest-dsvm-full-glusterfs-nv/
On Fri, Jul
On 16:47 Jun 30, Mike Perez wrote:
On 12:24 Jun 26, Matt Riedemann wrote:
snip
So the question is, is everyone OK with this and ready to make that change?
Thanks for all your work on this Matt.
I'm fine with this. I say bite the bullet and we'll see the CI's surface that
aren't
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:17 AM, Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12:24 Jun 26, Matt Riedemann wrote:
snip
So the question is, is everyone OK with this and ready to make that
change?
Thanks for all your work on this Matt.
+100, awesome debug, followup and fixing work by Matt
I'm
On 7/2/2015 4:12 AM, Deepak Shetty wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:17 AM, Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com
mailto:thin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12:24 Jun 26, Matt Riedemann wrote:
snip
So the question is, is everyone OK with this and ready to make that
change?
Thanks for all
Oh, just to be clear, I don't mean to discard what you fixed
My intention was to discuss what would be a better way to fix this in
future thru a feature/blueprint, given there is a consensus
thanx,
deepak
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Deepak Shetty dpkshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2,
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On 7/2/2015 4:12 AM, Deepak Shetty wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:17 AM, Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com
mailto:thin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12:24 Jun 26, Matt Riedemann wrote:
snip
So the
On 6/30/2015 6:47 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
On 12:24 Jun 26, Matt Riedemann wrote:
snip
So the question is, is everyone OK with this and ready to make that change?
Thanks for all your work on this Matt.
I'm fine with this. I say bite the bullet and we'll see the CI's surface that
aren't
On 12:24 Jun 26, Matt Riedemann wrote:
snip
So the question is, is everyone OK with this and ready to make that change?
Thanks for all your work on this Matt.
I'm fine with this. I say bite the bullet and we'll see the CI's surface that
aren't skipping or failing this test.
I will communicate
Tempest has the TestEncryptedCinderVolumes scenario test [1] which
creates an encrypted volume type, creates a volume from that volume
type, boots a server instance and then attaches/detaches the 'encrypted'
volume to/from the server instance.
This works fine in the integrated gate because
