Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [zuul] third-party CI for zuul-jobs

2017-12-05 Thread Tristan Cacqueray
On November 28, 2017 7:37 pm, James E. Blair wrote: Jens Harbott writes: 2017-11-23 5:28 GMT+00:00 Tristan Cacqueray : ... TL;DR; Is it alright if we re-enable this CI and report those tests on zuul-jobs patchsets? I like the general idea, but

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [zuul] third-party CI for zuul-jobs

2017-11-28 Thread James E. Blair
Jens Harbott writes: > 2017-11-23 5:28 GMT+00:00 Tristan Cacqueray : > ... >> TL;DR; Is it alright if we re-enable this CI and report those tests on >> zuul-jobs patchsets? > > I like the general idea, but please wait for more feedback until doing

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [zuul] third-party CI for zuul-jobs

2017-11-23 Thread Tristan Cacqueray
On November 23, 2017 10:21 am, Jens Harbott wrote: 2017-11-23 5:28 GMT+00:00 Tristan Cacqueray : ... TL;DR; Is it alright if we re-enable this CI and report those tests on zuul-jobs patchsets? I like the general idea, but please wait for more feedback until doing

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [zuul] third-party CI for zuul-jobs

2017-11-23 Thread Jens Harbott
2017-11-23 5:28 GMT+00:00 Tristan Cacqueray : ... > TL;DR; Is it alright if we re-enable this CI and report those tests on > zuul-jobs patchsets? I like the general idea, but please wait for more feedback until doing so. Also, IMHO it would be better if you could

[OpenStack-Infra] [zuul] third-party CI for zuul-jobs

2017-11-22 Thread Tristan Cacqueray
a new tenant to prevent conflicts with openstack-infra/zuul-jobs ```yaml - tenant: name: openstack.org source: softwarefactory-project.io: config-projects: - third-party-ci-config untrusted-projects: - third-party-ci-jobs openstack.org