Hi Cedric, I merely meant of the PODs listed in Intel's Lab[1], the majority of them are not devoted to CI but development work (5 out of 12); That comment is unrelated to the use of POD19. :)
Definitely agree that Functest needs a place to run apart from scenario CI deployments in order to validate itself and use functional gating. Regards, Trevor Bramwell [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/pharos/Intel+Lab On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:14:12PM +0200, ollivier.ced...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Trevor, > > I don't see the point about development. > As already explained during Release meetings and Weekly Technical > meetings (+mail Tue, 19 Jun 2018), Functest team wants to introduce > Functional Gating which is mandatory for our development. > > We do stop linking the test frameworks gating and the installers one > (see the Releng model). It's also the first step towards a possible > rolling release > > We are fine to share it with other test projects as long as we don't > get false results (Workflow). > > This topic is even more crucial at the beginning of the release because > of the Installer updates and then the lack of results even if MS3.1 is > reached. > > Cédric > > On lun., 2018-07-02 at 14:13 -0700, Trevor Bramwell wrote: > > Hi Alec, > > > > Thanks for clarifying the use of POD 19. From what I know, most of > > the > > PODs at Intel are being used for development work. > > > > Regards, > > Trevor Bramwell > > > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 03:59:26PM +0000, Alec Hothan (ahothan) > > wrote: > > > please do not divert pod19, it is planned to be used for testing > > > projects. We can certainly share it with Auto when not in use. > > > The main requirement for pod19 is that we can rely on having a > > > stable bare metal installer/openstack on it so we can regress on > > > test projects – i.e. pod19 should not be used for testing > > > installers or for running installer CI jobs. I’m not sure what > > > “Auto CI” means exactly, if that relies on a stable openstack > > > running, it might work (assuming it does not trash openstack after > > > each run). > > > > > > Have you looked at other Intel pods? I only know of 2 that are used > > > (12 and 19) and it seems there are more than 2 pods… > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Alec > > > > > > > > > > > > From: <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of Trevor > > > Bramwell <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> > > > Date: Monday, July 2, 2018 at 8:40 AM > > > To: <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > > > Cc: <wutianw...@huawei.com>, <timothy.gres...@intel.com>, <trevor.c > > > oo...@intel.com>, <tina.t...@arm.com> > > > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] x86 POD for Auto Project > > > > > > Hi Intel and Huawei Lab Owners, > > > > > > The Auto project is looking for an x86 POD for running CI jobs on > > > and > > > I'm reaching out to see if you have any available resources they > > > could > > > use. > > > > > > I see Intel POD 19 may be available (now that plugtest is over), > > > and > > > Huawei POD 6 says it's IDLE. Could either of these or any other > > > PODs be > > > made available for Auto's CI jobs? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Trevor Bramwell > > > > > > P.S. Trevor Cooper, I just remembered we discussed possibly using > > > POD 19 > > > for test projects, though I don't recall if we reached a decision > > > on > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#21527): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21527 Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/23003662/21656 Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
