On 26 June 2015 at 23:01, Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com wrote:
I wrote this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm
Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts?
Hi Matt, thanks for raising this. We've had very mixed results trying
to figure
Matthew Booth wrote:
I wrote this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm
Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts?
+1 to doing the ideal and fixing PBR (if it needs fixing) :-)
Matt
On 06/26/2015 07:24 AM, Clark Boylan wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 04:01 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
I wrote this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm
Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts?
Use the PBR_VERSION env var [1], it exists
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/26/2015 01:01 PM, Matthew Booth wrote:
I wrote this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm
Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour.
Thoughts?
Matt
You either use an older pbr version,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 04:01 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
I wrote this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm
Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts?
Use the PBR_VERSION env var [1], it exists so that downstreams can
assert a specific
I wrote this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm
Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts?
Matt
--
Matthew Booth
Red Hat Engineering, Virtualisation Team
Phone: +442070094448 (UK)
GPG ID: D33C3490
GPG FPR: 3733 612D 2D05 5458 8A8A 1600
