On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:04:05PM -0700, Mike Perez wrote: > On 16:28 Jul 10, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > Unfortunately, we don't get a lot of stats [1] because we don't run it > > often. I've added 'check experimental' comment to latest > > python-cinderclient review request to get more stats. > > > > Review request to make this voting: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200522/ > > > > [1] > > http://graphite.openstack.org/render/?width=877&height=548&_salt=1436533755.887&from=00%3A00_20150524&until=23%3A59_20150710&target=stats.zuul.pipeline.experimental.job.check-cinderclient-dsvm-functional.FAILURE&target=stats.zuul.pipeline.experimental.job.check-cinderclient-dsvm-functional.SUCCESS&target=stats.zuul.pipeline.experimental.openstack.python-cinderclient.total_changes&title=check-cinderclient-dsvm-functional > > Add an agenda item to the next Cinder meeting. Sure there should be no > objections. >
Just an FYI that these tests used to always be voting until they were removed from tempest. [1][2] Almost every other project that did the same client test migration from tempest just made the new client specific jobs voting from the start so there was no loss in coverage. I'm not entirely sure why cinderclient got stuck as experimental jobs, but it doesn't seem overly contentious to me to just flip the switch. -Matt Treinish [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/178757/ [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-April/063018.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
