Neil, The global requirements upper-constraints.txt do not cover neutron unit test targets. So the unit tests pick up latest from pypi.
-- Dims On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Neil Jerram <neil.jer...@metaswitch.com> wrote: > On 13/01/16 19:27, Carl Baldwin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was looking at the most recent gate breakage in Neutron [1], fixed >> by [2]. This gate breakage was held off for some time by the >> upper-constraints.txt file. This is great progress and I applaud it. >> I'll continue to cheer on this effort. >> >> Now to the next problem. If my assessment of this gate failure is >> correct, the update to the upper-constraints file [3] was merged >> without running all of the tests across all of the projects that would >> be broken by bringing in this new constraint. So, we still get >> breakage and it is still (IMO) too often. >> >> As I see it, there are a couple of options. >> >> 1) We run all tests under the upper-constraints control on all updates >> to the upper constraints file like [2]. This would probably mean each >> update has a very long list of tests and we would require that they >> all be fixed before the upper constraint update can be merged. This >> seems like a difficult thing to coordinate all at once. >> 2) We handle upper-constraints much like we do the global requirements >> updates. We have the master and a bot that proposes updates to it out >> to the individual projects. This would create a situation where >> projects are out of sync with the master but I think if we froze the >> master early enough, we could have time to reconcile before release. >> 3) We continue to allow changes in the upper constraints to break >> individual projects. >> >> Are there options that I missed? What is your opinion? In my >> opinion, gate breakage happens a bit too often and the effect on the >> community is widespread. I'd like to contain it even a little bit >> more. >> >> Carl >> >> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1533638 >> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/266885/ >> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/266042/ > > I've only just started to learn about requirements and constraints, so I > may be misunderstanding. However, > https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/README.rst says: > >> For upper-constraints.txt changes >> >> If the change was proposed by the OpenStack CI bot, then if the >> change has passed CI, only one reviewer is needed and they should +2 >> +A without thinking about things. >> >> If the change was not proposed by the OpenStack CI bot, and does not >> include a global-requirements.txt change, then it should be rejected: >> the CI bot will generate an appropriate change itself. Ask in >> #openstack-infra if the bot needs to be run more quickly. > > Doesn't that mean that [3] should have been rejected, and hence already > cover the recent situation? > > Neil > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __________________________________________________________________________ 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