Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-13 Thread Jim Rollenhagen
> > ++ > > 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-13 Thread Ruby Loo
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,

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Devananda van der Veen
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,

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Jay Faulkner
> 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 >

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
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.

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Jim Rollenhagen
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Vasyl Saienko
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,

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Vasyl Saienko
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

[openstack-dev] [ironic] [infra] RFC: consolidating and extending Ironic CI jobs

2016-10-12 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
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