[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

[fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT]

Hi,

I had a quick look at this and diffed the commits and I see no conflict so 
Gerrit was fine not raising conflict. (the changed line in 
05-implementation.rst in most recent patch is not a conflicting change)

I then tried regenerating the documents by putting remerge as comment to check 
the doc generation script/job output for possible errors which I didn't see 
any. But the generated document is correct now. If you don't see the updates, 
please try using a different browser or refresh the page after couple of 
minutes due to caching.

With that said, this doesn't really help us as we need to be able to trust our 
toolchain and we shouldn't need to remerge stuff just to make sure.
I'll raise this to docs team and see what they say.

/Fatih

From:  on behalf of "Kunzmann, 
Gerald" 
Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:28
To: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org" 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Dear all,

Not sure how is the best team to address this to. We have noticed the following 
issue:

In Doctor project there had been two patches merged on the alarm comparison 
table in Section 5.5.3:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26715

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/27237

Few days later, we merged another patch addressing some editorial changes in 
the document but NOT touching this alarm comparison table:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26731

Unfortunately, this patch has overwritten the two patches merged earlier and 
the alarm comparison table is back to the old version.
I would have expected

a)   that the patch is only changing the editorial fixes, and/or

b)   result in a “merge conflict” as parts of the repo had been changed 
with the other patch.

I had tried to revert the last patch 26731 in patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/27531/  ,
but the document links provided by jenkins-ci still show the old version of the 
table.
I would have expected that with the revert of the last patch, we would be back 
to the version we had after having submitted patch 27237.

Now, whilst I could manually fix this issue by providing another patch to 
update the table,
I am very concerned that this behavior may also cause similar issues in other 
patch submissions that go unnoticed….

Can someone please have a look at this?

Best regards,
Gerald

===
Dr. Gerald Kunzmann, Manager
DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 312, 80687 Munich
Tel: +49-89-56824-239 / Fax: +49-89-56824-300
Web: http://www.docomoeurolabs.de

Geschäftsführer: Atsushi Takeshita, Dr. Thomas Walter, Hisahiro Hamahata, 
Hiroyuki Oto, Kei Tonokura,
Amtsgericht München, HRB 132976


___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #45048] [linuxfoundation.org #45048] Re: [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker repo

[fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT]

Hi,

About using docker hub for builds; I thought the docker builds would remain on 
OPNFV Jenkins due to the limitation you highlighted below and the other 
limitations/potential issues we summarized in earlier discussions. [1]
I might have missed to followup discussions that have happened during the 
summer period so I'd be happy to catch up and read the reasons behind this.

If you still think of moving to docker hub for builds, we need to think and 
have a long term strategy rather than just moving builds to there and getting 
paid service as it will limit our ability to improve how we are doing things 
for test projects or projects that are building docker images.

[1] https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-July/017177.html
 
/Fatih

On 2017-08-30, 11:43, "opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on behalf of 
morgan.richo...@orange.com"  wrote:

Hi,

2 pending questions regarding the way we are managing our docker files

1) Cedric sent a mail 2 weeks ago ([OPNFV Helpdesk #42909] New Functest 
Docker repositories) in order to create new docker repositories: 
opnfv/functest-features, opnfv/functest-components and opnfv/functest-vnf

As it has not been done yet we are currently using Cedric's private 
docker repo (where he customized the different hook) 
ollivier/functest-components,  ollivier/functest-features and 
ollivier/functest-vnf and we referenced them in releng

But, of course, it would make more sense to rely on official OPNFV 
docker...

José asked Trevor B. to create the first repo (opnfv/functest-core, 
opnfv/functest-healthcheck and opnfv/functest-smoke) before he left in PTO.

Cedric asked for the new repo on this mail thread. Should we create a 
new ticket?

BTW it seems that there is an issue on the hooks used for OPNFV docker 
repos. Builds must be done in a precise order (core must be built prior 
to any other built), which seems not the case on OPNFV docker hub. 
Cedric detailed the issue and the fix (screenshots) in the same mail thread.

Any help will be welcome to reference official sources.

2) At the moment the Docker automated builds are used per gerrit merge 
for all OPNFV projects. As we are using a basic account and the number 
of docker produced within OPNFV is increasing there is a high risk of 
congestion.

Could it be possible to migrate to an account allowing parallel builds 
(https://hub.docker.com/billing-plans/).

The cost is reasonable, we could start with a Medium or Large one.

As docker management is transverse, widely used by testing projects, Who 
should take the lead to ask for such change to the TSC? Releng? Infra 
Group? Testig group?

Any comment welcome

/Morgan


_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss



___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss