So I'm not sure that this should be a mandatory thing, but an
opt-in. My real concern is the manpower, who is going to take the
time to write all the test suites for all of the projects. I think
it would be better to add that on-demand as the extra testing is
required. That being said, I
Note that the notifications that capture these resource state transitions
are a long-standing mechanism in openstack that ceilometer has depended
on from the very outset. I don't think it's realistic to envisage these
interactions will be replaced by REST APIs any time soon.
I wasn't
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 08:37:40AM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
Note that the notifications that capture these resource state transitions
are a long-standing mechanism in openstack that ceilometer has depended
on from the very outset. I don't think it's realistic to envisage these
Hi!
There is a lot of useful information in that post (even excluding the
part brainstorming solutions) and it would be a shame if it was lost in
a sub-thread. Do you plan to make a blog post, or reference wiki page,
out of this ?
Back to the content, I think a more layered testing approach (as
On 07/10/2014 08:53 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 08:37:40AM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
Note that the notifications that capture these resource state transitions
are a long-standing mechanism in openstack that ceilometer has depended
on from the very outset. I don't think
On 07/10/2014 09:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi!
There is a lot of useful information in that post (even excluding the
part brainstorming solutions) and it would be a shame if it was lost in
a sub-thread. Do you plan to make a blog post, or reference wiki page,
out of this ?
Back to the
On 07/10/2014 09:48 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:16:01AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
I think we need to actually step back a little and figure out where we
are, how we got here, and what the future of validation might need to
look like in OpenStack. Because I think there
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 07/10/2014 09:48 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:16:01AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
I think we need to actually step back a little and figure out where we
are, how we got here, and what the future of
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 05:41:10AM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
TL;DR: branchless Tempest shouldn't impact on backporting policy, yet
makes it difficult to test new features not discoverable via APIs
Folks,
At the project/release status meeting yesterday[1], I raised the issue
that
I think we need to actually step back a little and figure out where we
are, how we got here, and what the future of validation might need to
look like in OpenStack. Because I think there has been some
communication gaps. (Also, for people I've had vigorous conversations
about this before, realize
Thanks for the response Matt, some comments inline.
At the project/release status meeting yesterday[1], I raised the issue
that featureful backports to stable are beginning to show up[2], purely
to facilitate branchless Tempest. We had a useful exchange of views on
IRC but ran out of
I think we need to actually step back a little and figure out where we
are, how we got here, and what the future of validation might need to
look like in OpenStack. Because I think there has been some
communication gaps. (Also, for people I've had vigorous conversations
about this before,
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 01:44:33PM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
Thanks for the response Matt, some comments inline.
At the project/release status meeting yesterday[1], I raised the issue
that featureful backports to stable are beginning to show up[2], purely
to facilitate branchless
13 matches
Mail list logo
