On 06/23/2015 08:13 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
The question for the nova team is, shall we make the tempest-dsvm-cells
job voting on nova changes knowing that the gate can be broken with a
change to tempest that isn't caught in the regex? In my opinion I think
we should make it voting so we
On 22 June 2015 at 23:03, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:38 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:32 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/22/2015 05:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
The check-tempest-dsvm-cells job has been in nova's check queue since
January
On 6/22/2015 4:32 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/22/2015 05:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
The check-tempest-dsvm-cells job has been in nova's check queue since
January as non-voting and has been stable for a couple of weeks now, so
before it's regressed melwitt proposed a change to making it
The check-tempest-dsvm-cells job has been in nova's check queue since
January as non-voting and has been stable for a couple of weeks now, so
before it's regressed melwitt proposed a change to making it voting and
gating on nova changes [1].
I raised a concern in that change that the
On 06/22/2015 05:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
The check-tempest-dsvm-cells job has been in nova's check queue since
January as non-voting and has been stable for a couple of weeks now, so
before it's regressed melwitt proposed a change to making it voting and
gating on nova changes [1].
I
On 06/22/15 at 04:23pm, Matt Riedemann wrote:
The check-tempest-dsvm-cells job has been in nova's check queue since
January as non-voting and has been stable for a couple of weeks now,
so before it's regressed melwitt proposed a change to making it
voting and gating on nova changes [1].
I
On 6/22/2015 4:38 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:32 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/22/2015 05:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
The check-tempest-dsvm-cells job has been in nova's check queue since
January as non-voting and has been stable for a couple of weeks now, so
before it's
