>
> ++
>
> 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 test
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 was reasonable when the
> 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
> coreos-based IPA image was t
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. This was reasonable when
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 IPA image was the def
On 10/12/2016 03:54 PM, Vasyl Saienko wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Dmitry Tantsur mailto:dtant...@redhat.com>> 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
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, adoption etc...
>>
>
> T
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 allow
11 matches
Mail list logo