On 12/06/2014 11:32 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 15:34:38 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/05/2014 10:00 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
Any thoughts on whether this is worth pursuing as an alternative to
openstack et. al? If there's anything that isn't clear, please ask
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 15:34:38 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/05/2014 10:00 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
Any thoughts on whether this is worth pursuing as an alternative to
openstack et. al? If there's anything that isn't clear, please ask
for clarification.
If you're going
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:00:31PM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
What if we turned that on it's head a bit and put VM spawning into the
task itself - spawn a vm local to the buildslave that is then
responsible for the actual work in the task instead of doing all the
work inside the buildslave
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 19:29:08 -0500
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:00:31PM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
What if we turned that on it's head a bit and put VM spawning into
the task itself - spawn a vm local to the buildslave that is then
responsible for
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 06:56:08PM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
This seems both sane and useful to me, but we _will_ want to run at
least some tests in the actual cloud environments. Should that stuff
go _back_ to fedimg?
As I understand it, most of the stuff that the cloud folks want to test
On 12/05/2014 10:00 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
Any thoughts on whether this is worth pursuing as an alternative to
openstack et. al? If there's anything that isn't clear, please ask for
clarification.
If you're going down this path, it's almost literally Beaker's image
based provisioning for guest
On 12/05/2014 03:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 12/05/2014 10:00 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
Any thoughts on whether this is worth pursuing as an alternative to
openstack et. al? If there's anything that isn't clear, please ask for
clarification.
If you're going down this path, it's almost
