Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

3.3 Upstream patches for storage #10111

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Aug 1, 2016
Merged

Conversation

pmorie
Copy link
Contributor

@pmorie pmorie commented Jul 29, 2016

Needed to fix issues with secret and configmap mounts timing out.

First level is upstream cherry-pick, second level is upstream master PRs:

@pmorie
Copy link
Contributor Author

pmorie commented Jul 29, 2016

[testextended][extended:core]

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Jul 29, 2016

@stevekuznetsov the bot would appear to be disobedient

@stevekuznetsov
Copy link
Contributor

@pmorie the trigger no longer contains only -- the bot is obedient, but dumb :)

@pmorie pmorie changed the title WIP: Upstream patches for storage 3.3 Upstream patches for storage Aug 1, 2016
@pmorie
Copy link
Contributor Author

pmorie commented Aug 1, 2016

[test]

@liggitt liggitt self-assigned this Aug 1, 2016
@stevekuznetsov
Copy link
Contributor

@pmorie FYI the [test] string will trigger normal pull requests tests, whereas [testextended] will trigger your previously configured extended tests only

@liggitt
Copy link
Contributor

liggitt commented Aug 1, 2016

yup, I asked for the normal test suite

nodeName,
err)
return nil
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

return or continue? bigger question, should errors later in the loop return or continue?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I need to consider this. We will need a new PR to fix it anyway, so this can go in and we'll do another patch PR later.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

follow up issue upstream is fine

@liggitt
Copy link
Contributor

liggitt commented Aug 1, 2016

LGTM, I await the great flake deliverance with great anticipation

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluated for origin testextended up to ca7c590

@liggitt
Copy link
Contributor

liggitt commented Aug 1, 2016

[merge]

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluated for origin test up to ca7c590

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Aug 1, 2016

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/7339/) (Image: devenv-rhel7_4718)

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluated for origin merge up to ca7c590

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/test SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/7339/)

@liggitt
Copy link
Contributor

liggitt commented Aug 1, 2016

Green test run

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/testextended FAILURE (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin_extended/385/) (Extended Tests: core)

openshift-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2016
@openshift-bot openshift-bot merged commit 4c38fa6 into openshift:master Aug 1, 2016
@openshift-bot openshift-bot merged commit ca7c590 into openshift:master Aug 1, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants