Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On February 20, 2018 1:35 am, Emilien Macchi wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] This is hopefully only a temporary measure? I think I've heard it mentioned that planning is underway to switch that CI system to Zuul v3 (perhaps after 3.0.0

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] > This is hopefully only a temporary measure? I think I've heard it > mentioned that planning is underway to switch that CI system to Zuul > v3 (perhaps after 3.0.0 officially releases soon). > Adding Tristan and

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

Perhaps we need to consider a backport of the syntax to the 2.5 series? It could help with the transition for those who need to upgrade. However, on the other hand it might make deployers more complacent to do so. On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On 2018-02-18 19:25:07 -0800 (-0800), Emilien Macchi wrote: [...] > My recommendation for TripleO devs: use the old syntax if you want your > code to be tested by RDO Third party CI [...] This is hopefully only a temporary measure? I think I've heard it mentioned that planning is underway to

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

I just realized that the new syntax doesn't work when third party jobs use an old version of Zuul (e.g. RDO RCI). Which means: Depends-On: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/542556/ doesn't work and Depends-On: Ia30965b362d1c05d216f59b4cc1b3cb7e1284046 works for third party jobs. We have to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:55 AM, James E. Blair wrote: > Zane Bitter writes: > >> Yeah, it's definitely nice to have that flexibility. e.g. here is a >> patch that wouldn't merge for 3 months because the thing it was >> dependent on also got proposed as a

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes: > The reason is that, contrary to earlier replies in this thread, the > /#/c/ version of the change URL does not work. The /#/c/ form of Gerrit URLs should work now; if it doesn't, please let me know. I would still recommend (and personally plan to

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

Zane Bitter writes: > Yeah, it's definitely nice to have that flexibility. e.g. here is a > patch that wouldn't merge for 3 months because the thing it was > dependent on also got proposed as a backport: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/514761/1 > > From an OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On 25/01/18 19:08, James E. Blair wrote: Mathieu Gagné writes: On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: I'm curious what this means as far as best practices for inter-patch references. In the past my understanding was the the change id

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

Eric Fried writes: > For my part, I tried it [1] and it doesn't seem to have worked. (The > functional test failure is what the dep is supposed to have fixed.) Did > I do something wrong? > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/533821/12 If you examine the "items:"

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On 2018-01-26 08:57:02 -0800 (-0800), James E. Blair wrote: [...] > Perhaps a method of automatically noting the dependencies in git > notes could help with that case? Or maybe use a different way of > communicating that information -- even with change-ids, there's > still a lot of missing

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

Mathieu Gagné writes: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:08 PM, James E. Blair wrote: >> Mathieu Gagné writes: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: I'm curious what this means as

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

For my part, I tried it [1] and it doesn't seem to have worked. (The functional test failure is what the dep is supposed to have fixed.) Did I do something wrong? [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/533821/12 On 01/25/2018 09:33 PM, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:08 PM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:08 PM, James E. Blair wrote: > Mathieu Gagné writes: > >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm curious what this means as far as best practices for inter-patch >>> references.

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

Mathieu Gagné writes: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: >> >> >> I'm curious what this means as far as best practices for inter-patch >> references. In the past my understanding was the the change id was >> preferred, both because

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: > > > I'm curious what this means as far as best practices for inter-patch > references. In the past my understanding was the the change id was > preferred, both because if gerrit changed its URL format the change id links

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On 01/24/2018 02:31 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: On 01/24/2018 02:25 PM, David Shrewsbury wrote: This is a (the?) killer feature. On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:33 AM, James E. Blair > wrote:     Hi,     We recently introduced a new URL-based

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

On 01/24/2018 02:25 PM, David Shrewsbury wrote: This is a (the?) killer feature. On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:33 AM, James E. Blair > wrote: Hi, We recently introduced a new URL-based syntax for Depends-On: footers in commit

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][all] New Zuul Depends-On syntax

This is a (the?) killer feature. On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:33 AM, James E. Blair wrote: > Hi, > > We recently introduced a new URL-based syntax for Depends-On: footers > in commit messages: > > Depends-On: https://review.openstack.org/535851 > > The old syntax will