Openstack Mojo Testing

Merge lp://staging/~chris.macnaughton/openstack-mojo-specs/ha-upgrade into lp://staging/openstack-mojo-specs

  1. ha-upgrade
  2. Merge into mojo-openstack-specs
Proposed by Chris MacNaughton
Status: Merged
Merged at revision: 320
Proposed branch: lp://staging/~chris.macnaughton/openstack-mojo-specs/ha-upgrade
Merge into: lp://staging/openstack-mojo-specs
Diff against target: 189 lines (+59/-14)
5 files modified
helper/utils/mojo_utils.py (+10/-4)
specs/full_stack/stable_to_next_ha/icehouse/manifest (+2/-5)
specs/full_stack/stable_to_next_ha/kilo/manifest (+2/-5)
specs/full_stack/stable_to_next_ha/ocata/SPEC_INFO.txt (+2/-0)
specs/full_stack/stable_to_next_ha/ocata/manifest (+43/-0)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://staging/~chris.macnaughton/openstack-mojo-specs/ha-upgrade
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Liam Young (community) Approve
Ryan Beisner Needs Fixing
Review via email: mp+334434@code.staging.launchpad.net
To post a comment you must log in.
lp://staging/~chris.macnaughton/openstack-mojo-specs/ha-upgrade updated
320. By Chris MacNaughton

update specs to grab from cs: proper links

321. By Chris MacNaughton

Apply gnuoy's patch to fix uprgade

Revision history for this message
Ryan Beisner (1chb1n) wrote :

All: please be sure to `make lint` on all mojo MPs and reviews.

helper/utils/mojo_utils.py:517:10: E111 indentation is not a multiple of four
helper/utils/mojo_utils.py:519:10: E111 indentation is not a multiple of four
checking helper/utils/os_versions.py
Makefile:5: recipe for target 'lint' failed
make: *** [lint] Error 1

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Ryan Beisner (1chb1n) wrote :

Why are we switching away from the explicit openstack-charmers stable charm namespace?

Revision history for this message
Chris MacNaughton (chris.macnaughton) wrote :

Per discussion in IRC, I can undo that change if we'd rather, for reference:

10:47:28 <gnuoy> icey, ok, so lets do what you suggested and just switch the spec to pull from cs:$name and upgrade to cs:openstack-charmers-next/$name
10:47:50 across all targets
10:47:57 <icey> gnuoy: I /think/ I'm ok pulling from cs:openstack-charmers/$name since (I believe) that cs:$name is basically a pointer at that
10:48:12 I'll update the change with that and then run another OSCI spec
10:48:17 <gnuoy> icey, I see no reason to do that
10:48:40 <icey> gnuoy: use the openstack-charmers (not -next) bits?
10:48:56 <gnuoy> Use cs:openstack-charmers/$name rather than cs:$name
10:49:36 I think we should be testing an upgrade from cs:$name to cs:openstack-charmers-next/$name and making no assumption about pointers

lp://staging/~chris.macnaughton/openstack-mojo-specs/ha-upgrade updated
322. By Chris MacNaughton

fix spacing

323. By Chris MacNaughton

revert to openstack-charmers urls

Revision history for this message
Ryan Beisner (1chb1n) wrote :

I think we need to be consistent across the collection files. Historically, and in other spec collect files, we use the explicit charm namespace. If there is a reason to move to cs:foo, let's talk about that and change them all, separately.

Revision history for this message
Liam Young (gnuoy) wrote :

LGTM, thanks.

review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches