On 18 November 2014 01:46, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 11/17/2014 07:26 AM, Alan Pevec wrote:
We don't support 2.6 any more in OpenStack. If we decide to pin
testtools on stable/*, we could just let this be.
>>>
>>> We still support 2.6 on the python clients and oslo libraries - but
>>> indee
On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 11/17/2014 07:26 AM, Alan Pevec wrote:
We don't support 2.6 any more in OpenStack. If we decide to pin
testtools on stable/*, we could just let this be.
>>>
>>> We still support 2.6 on the python clients and oslo libraries - but
>>>
On 11/17/2014 07:26 AM, Alan Pevec wrote:
>>> We don't support 2.6 any more in OpenStack. If we decide to pin
>>> testtools on stable/*, we could just let this be.
>>
>> We still support 2.6 on the python clients and oslo libraries - but
>> indeed not for trove itself with master.
>
> What Andreas
>> We don't support 2.6 any more in OpenStack. If we decide to pin
>> testtools on stable/*, we could just let this be.
>
> We still support 2.6 on the python clients and oslo libraries - but
> indeed not for trove itself with master.
What Andreas said, also testtools claims "testtools gives you t
On 11/17/2014 06:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 11/16/2014 06:11 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 17 November 2014 11:29, Alan Pevec wrote:
>>> 2014-11-15 23:06 GMT+01:00 Robert Collins :
We did find a further issue, which was due to the use of setUpClass in
tempest (a thing that testtools
On 11/16/2014 06:11 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 17 November 2014 11:29, Alan Pevec wrote:
>> 2014-11-15 23:06 GMT+01:00 Robert Collins :
>>> We did find a further issue, which was due to the use of setUpClass in
>>> tempest (a thing that testtools has never supported per se - its
>>> always bee
On 11/15/2014 02:51 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> It probably needs to be backed out of stable/icehouse. The issue is
> that we were installing unittest2 via distro packages *and* testtools
> new dependency on unittest2 did not express a minimum version.
>
> We're just about to issue 1.2.1 which wil
This is in testtools 1.4.0 but I can't upload it to pypi atm - its 500ing.
:(
-Rob
On 17 November 2014 18:41, Nikhil Manchanda wrote:
> Thanks Robert!
>
> Looks like it failed the Travis CI job due to an intermittent connectivity
> issue
> and I don't have the rights to kick-off the job again.
Thanks Robert!
Looks like it failed the Travis CI job due to an intermittent connectivity
issue
and I don't have the rights to kick-off the job again. I would appreciate it
if you could kick it off again when you get a chance.
Cheers,
Nikhil
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Robert Collins
wrote
On 17 November 2014 11:29, Alan Pevec wrote:
> 2014-11-15 23:06 GMT+01:00 Robert Collins :
>> We did find a further issue, which was due to the use of setUpClass in
>> tempest (a thing that testtools has never supported per se - its
>> always been a happy accident that it worked). I've hopefully f
On 17 November 2014 11:29, Alan Pevec wrote:
> 2014-11-15 23:06 GMT+01:00 Robert Collins :
>> We did find a further issue, which was due to the use of setUpClass in
>> tempest (a thing that testtools has never supported per se - its
>> always been a happy accident that it worked). I've hopefully f
2014-11-15 23:06 GMT+01:00 Robert Collins :
> We did find a further issue, which was due to the use of setUpClass in
> tempest (a thing that testtools has never supported per se - its
> always been a happy accident that it worked). I've hopefully fixed
> that in 1.3.0 and we're babysitting tempest
On 16 November 2014 09:06, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 16 November 2014 03:25, Sean Dague wrote:
>> Testtools 1.2.0 release apparently broke subunit.run discover --list
>> which breaks the way that tempest calls the test chain. No tempest runs
>> have passed since it's release.
...
> I think every
On 15 November 2014 21:22, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2014-11-15 20:38:02 + (+), Dave Walker wrote:
>> You are right, I accidently folded two issues into 1. However, I do
>> not understand how we can resolve this issue the way you have outlined
>> without introducing a new minimum version
On 2014-11-15 20:38:02 + (+), Dave Walker wrote:
> You are right, I accidently folded two issues into 1. However, I do
> not understand how we can resolve this issue the way you have outlined
> without introducing a new minimum version on unittest2, which was not
> previously a requirement
On 16 November 2014 09:38, Dave Walker wrote:
> On 15 November 2014 20:23, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 16 November 2014 09:03, Dave Walker wrote:
>>> On 15 November 2014 19:51, Robert Collins wrote:
It probably needs to be backed out of stable/icehouse. The issue is
that we were insta
On 15 November 2014 20:23, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 16 November 2014 09:03, Dave Walker wrote:
>> On 15 November 2014 19:51, Robert Collins wrote:
>>> It probably needs to be backed out of stable/icehouse. The issue is
>>> that we were installing unittest2 via distro packages *and* testtools
>
On 16 November 2014 09:03, Dave Walker wrote:
> On 15 November 2014 19:51, Robert Collins wrote:
>> It probably needs to be backed out of stable/icehouse. The issue is
>> that we were installing unittest2 via distro packages *and* testtools
>> new dependency on unittest2 did not express a minimum
On 16 November 2014 03:25, Sean Dague wrote:
> Testtools 1.2.0 release apparently broke subunit.run discover --list
> which breaks the way that tempest calls the test chain. No tempest runs
> have passed since it's release.
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134705/ is a requirements pin, though
On 2014-11-16 08:51:34 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
[...]
> The issue is that we were installing unittest2 via distro packages
> *and* testtools new dependency on unittest2 did not express a
> minimum version.
[...]
BTW, patches to stop installing unittest2 from distro packages in
devstack
On 15 November 2014 19:51, Robert Collins wrote:
> It probably needs to be backed out of stable/icehouse. The issue is
> that we were installing unittest2 via distro packages *and* testtools
> new dependency on unittest2 did not express a minimum version.
>
> We're just about to issue 1.2.1 which
It probably needs to be backed out of stable/icehouse. The issue is
that we were installing unittest2 via distro packages *and* testtools
new dependency on unittest2 did not express a minimum version.
We're just about to issue 1.2.1 which will have such a minimum version.
And for the record, this
On 15 November 2014 14:25, Sean Dague wrote:
> Testtools 1.2.0 release apparently broke subunit.run discover --list
> which breaks the way that tempest calls the test chain. No tempest runs
> have passed since it's release.
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134705/ is a requirements pin, though
On 2014-11-15 09:25:54 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote:
> Testtools 1.2.0 release apparently broke subunit.run discover --list
[...]
> Also... lets try not to release libraries on Fridays before disappearing
> for the weekend... please. Pretty please.
Also reported upstream as
https://github.com/t
Sean,
I can baby sit these 3
thanks,
dims
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> Testtools 1.2.0 release apparently broke subunit.run discover --list
> which breaks the way that tempest calls the test chain. No tempest runs
> have passed since it's release.
>
> https://review.open
Testtools 1.2.0 release apparently broke subunit.run discover --list
which breaks the way that tempest calls the test chain. No tempest runs
have passed since it's release.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134705/ is a requirements pin, though I
think because of grenade this is actually going to h
26 matches
Mail list logo
