On 11 October 2016 at 16:54, Clark Boylan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016, at 04:51 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > On 11 October 2016 at 16:43, Clark Boylan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016, at 04:32 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > On 11 October 2016 at 14:09, Clark Boylan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > Currently multinode testing + neutron is broken in clouds that use > > > > > portions of 10.0.0.0/8 for their networking due to route conflicts > > > with > > > > > devstack + neutron deployments. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bug > > > s/1629133 > > > > > is tracking the issue for us. I would like to see this get resolved > > > > > properly before we do further work on multinode testing as it is > > > > > difficult to review and determine what failures are legit vs which > > > > > failures are related to this bug and whether or not a specific > > > multinode > > > > > test has decided to workaround the issue. > > > > > > > > > > The change to use subnet pools in devstack is a non backward > compatible > > > > > change for devstack currently and it doesn't appear to have been > > > > > documented in devstack at all. Would be great if we can finally fix > > > this > > > > > and get testing back to working and however we fix it ensure that > > > > > devstack has the appropriate documentation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is holding [1] back? Merging that would resolve the issue, then > we > > > > can > > > > drill down into why subnetpools interfere with the underlying > networking > > > > setup. I have asked Carl to look into broken build [2] > > > > > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/379543/ > > > > [2] > > > > http://logs.openstack.org/78/381278/2/check/gate-tempest-dsv > > > m-neutron-multinode-full-ubuntu-xenial/7f82862/console.html.gz > > > > > > Yours is one of the two -1's on the change :) I think that devstack > core > > > is probably holding back due to the two -1s there. If we are ok with > > > iterating on making it better rather than all in one shot maybe that > > > change is good for now and we can update the reviews? > > > > > > > Well, that means the ball is in the contributor's court, who is supposed > > to > > address reviewers' concerns :) > > > The comments on the change with -1's are opposed to doing what the > change does. I don't know how I can possibly address them. > Then say so on the review and I am happy to rephrase to make sure I get my message across correctly. If you let the review rot how can you expect it to make progress? That's like Openstack 101 > > Clark > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
