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
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
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
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
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