08:02:41 #startmeeting third-party 08:02:42 Meeting started Tue Jun 16 08:02:41 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is anteaya. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 08:02:43 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 08:02:45 The meeting name has been set to 'third_party' 08:03:03 if you are here for the third party meeting raise your hand 08:03:06 say hello 08:03:13 hello! 08:03:56 hello eantyshev 08:04:00 how are you? 08:04:20 anteaya: Fine, got a couple questions 08:04:29 eantyshev: go ahead 08:06:12 eantyshev: did you want to post your questions? 08:06:22 current regex for 'recheck' triggers some unrelated CIs, for example https://review.openstack.org/#/c/190273/ patchset 9 08:08:00 yes 08:08:01 Is it acceptable to narrow the scope of CI to not react to those? 08:08:21 we have no control over what syntax a ci uses for recheck 08:08:35 aslo recheck should fire everything 08:09:01 because otherwise you could just recheck until you got the result you wanted 08:09:10 rather than having all the tests run you just pick 08:09:13 recheck a 08:09:16 recheck a 08:09:20 recheck a 08:09:28 until a passes and then 08:09:31 recheck b 08:09:33 recheck b 08:09:40 until you get the result you wanted 08:09:54 Hi. If recheck fires everything why do we need regex with a proper third party name there ? 08:09:55 this allows patches with race conditions into master 08:10:04 but 'recheck a' triggers Jenkins jobs too 08:10:15 we never asked for a regex with a third party name 08:10:27 that is just what ci operators did 08:10:38 yes recheck fires jenkins jobs 08:11:03 I see, so basically I can use another keyword to trigger my CI only. 08:11:22 if that is your choice 08:11:37 infra has no enforcement of any recheck syntax 08:11:39 ok, so it's acceptable for our CI to react to bare 'recheck' and 'recheck Virtuozzo6 CI'? 08:11:49 if that is your choice 08:11:59 infra has no enforcement of any recheck syntax 08:12:25 what are the reasons to do recheck when it's not requested? 08:12:45 to show some stability? 08:13:01 recheck means to run the tests 08:13:17 if recheck is the comment running the tests is requested 08:13:27 did you not understand my example above? 08:13:36 you run the tests or you don't 08:13:48 you don't get to chose which tests you run 08:13:54 you run them all 08:14:37 I think I understand 08:14:41 eantyshev: great 08:15:07 did you have other questions today? 08:15:15 yes 08:15:56 many third parties have different accounts for different projects 08:16:03 okay 08:16:41 does that mean they run separate Zuul server for each? 08:16:46 no idea 08:17:03 we are using 2 zuuls for 2 different CIs 08:17:09 I would guess some do and some don't 08:17:24 we have no way to track who does or does not 08:17:36 lennyb: thanks 08:17:40 lennyb: do you run them in one VM instance? 08:17:49 I dont think there is a technical problem to use 1 zuuls. 08:17:56 no we use 2 VMs 08:18:08 no. We use 2 VMs 08:18:24 I don't think running more than one zuul on a single server is a good idea 08:18:30 but I don't know for sure 08:18:46 but it wouldn't be an initial choice I made 08:19:11 just like nodepool needs its own network 08:19:20 I would allocate zuul its own server 08:19:36 lennyb: do you have common jenkins, nodepool, etc. for these CIs? 08:20:13 agreed, you also use zuul user with it's environment and configuration, so I think it will be very tricky ( if possible ) to configure 2 zuuls on the same machine 08:20:31 we have Jenkins, Zuul, JJB. no nodepool. 08:21:42 anteaya: we came to the point where we need to split one CI account in 2 08:21:51 btw, we do run NOvaCI and Neutron CI on the same Jenkins Master and zuul, but when our account was disabled due to Neutron CI, Nova CI was disabled as well. 08:21:58 eantyshev: okay 08:23:45 anteaya: just interested how others do 08:23:57 eantyshev: of course 08:24:08 eantyshev: any other questions? 08:25:15 lennyb: how are you doing today? 08:25:17 anteaya: have to draw somebody's attention to https://review.openstack.org/188383 08:25:27 lennyb: was there anything you wanted to discuss? 08:25:49 eantyshev: what do you want them to see on 188383? 08:26:17 anteaya: thanks. How are you? BTW, I met jogo yesterday. NO, I have nothing to discuss. 08:26:40 lennyb: wonderful 08:26:54 eantyshev: you see there is a -1 on your patch 08:27:10 eantyshev: jim would like you to provide a test 08:27:18 anteaya: I want it merged, since all prerequisites are met 08:27:26 eantyshev: you have a -1 08:27:32 and a request for a test 08:27:44 not all prerequistes are met 08:27:54 jim wrote zuul 08:27:59 anteaya: https://review.openstack.org/191588 08:28:21 anteaya: it's in dependent review 08:28:35 did you say so in the patch? 08:28:54 have you talked to jim about having the test as a dependent patch? 08:29:16 so you are linking in the meeting so other operators are aware? 08:29:21 that's fine 08:29:36 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188383/ 08:29:50 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191588/ 08:29:56 thanks for doing thts work 08:29:57 anteaya: hope this will help, thanks! 08:30:31 eantyshev: I do suggest you find jeblair in infra during north american daylight hours to discuss your approach with him 08:30:47 as he may want the test in the same patch as the code 08:32:15 anteaya: I will discuss it with him 08:32:22 eantyshev: great 08:32:34 anything else for this meeting? 08:34:36 no. 08:34:41 no 08:34:42 does anyone else have any items for this meeting? 08:34:45 okay great 08:35:03 well I won't keep you if we are finshed our discussion 08:35:08 thanks for the chat 08:35:11 :) 08:35:18 thanks. buy. 08:35:22 thanks! 08:35:23 I appreciate your attendance and participation 08:35:24 bye :) 08:35:28 see you next week 08:35:34 #endmeeting