>
> ++
>
> Thanks for bringing this up Dmitry! Might I suggest, if we don't already
> have it, that this would be a good time to track (in a spreadsheet-like
> form), the jobs with the tests covered by each job (or desired but not
> covered yet). I can never remember what we are testing vs not
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Devananda van der Veen <
devananda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/12/2016 05:01 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > I'd like to propose a plan on how to simultaneously extend the coverage
> of our
> > jobs and reduce their number.
> >
> > Currently,
On 10/12/2016 05:01 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I'd like to propose a plan on how to simultaneously extend the coverage of our
> jobs and reduce their number.
>
> Currently, we're running one instance per job. This was reasonable when the
> coreos-based IPA image was the default,
On 10/12/2016 05:53 PM, Jay Faulkner wrote:
On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:01 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
Hi folks!
I'd like to propose a plan on how to simultaneously extend the coverage of our
jobs and reduce their number.
Currently, we're running one instance per job. This
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:01 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> I'd like to propose a plan on how to simultaneously extend the coverage of
> our jobs and reduce their number.
>
> Currently, we're running one instance per job. This was reasonable when the
>
On 10/12/2016 04:02 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
Hi folks!
I'd like to propose a plan on how to simultaneously extend the coverage of
our jobs and reduce their number.
Currently, we're running one instance per job.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I'd like to propose a plan on how to simultaneously extend the coverage of
> our jobs and reduce their number.
>
> Currently, we're running one instance per job. This was reasonable when the
> coreos-based
On 10/12/2016 03:54 PM, Vasyl Saienko wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Dmitry Tantsur > wrote:
On 10/12/2016 03:01 PM, Vasyl Saienko wrote:
Hello Dmitry,
Thanks for raising this question. I think the problem is
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 03:01 PM, Vasyl Saienko wrote:
>
>> Hello Dmitry,
>>
>> Thanks for raising this question. I think the problem is deeper. There
>> are a lot
>> of use-cases that are not covered by our CI like cleaning,
On 10/12/2016 03:01 PM, Vasyl Saienko wrote:
Hello Dmitry,
Thanks for raising this question. I think the problem is deeper. There are a lot
of use-cases that are not covered by our CI like cleaning, adoption etc...
This is nice, but here I'm trying to solve a pretty specific problem: we can't
Hello Dmitry,
Thanks for raising this question. I think the problem is deeper. There are
a lot of use-cases that are not covered by our CI like cleaning, adoption
etc...
The main problem is that we need to change ironic configuration to apply
specific use-case. Unfortunately tempest doesn't
Hi folks!
I'd like to propose a plan on how to simultaneously extend the coverage of our
jobs and reduce their number.
Currently, we're running one instance per job. This was reasonable when the
coreos-based IPA image was the default, but now with tinyipa we can run up to 7
instances (and
12 matches
Mail list logo