Closed jsafrane closed 3 years ago
@jsafrane: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1959546, which is invalid:
Comment /bugzilla refresh
to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: jsafrane
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
The pull request process is described here
@jsafrane: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1959546, which is invalid:
Comment /bugzilla refresh
to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.
/bugzilla refresh
@jsafrane: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1959546, which is invalid:
Comment /bugzilla refresh
to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.
/bugzilla refresh
@jsafrane: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1959546, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.
No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Bugzilla (wduan@redhat.com), skipping review request.
I tested this on a 4.7 cluster where I was using datastore cluster and it seems be working:
521 02:14:49.160183 1 datastore.go:56] CheckStorageClasses: dsc: datastore team-ssd-intel is part of intel-ds-cluster datastore cluster I0521 02:14:49.160200 1 datastore.go:67] CheckStorageClasses checked 2 storage classes, 1 problems found I0521 02:14:49.160207 1 operator.go:241] CheckStorageClasses failed: StorageClass dsc: datastore team-ssd-intel is part of intel-ds-cluster datastore cluster
/lgtm
[patch-manager] I evaluated this last week and skipped it due to the size and the fact that the upstream bugs referenced only moved to MODIFIED on May 17th. Finally, we were constrained on capacity last week as well. We will re-evaluate when the merge window opens again later this week.
We probably want openshift/cluster-storage-operator#169 to go in first anyway, so we remain covered in one way or another, and that PR is still waiting on lgtm/approval.
@wking if we merge https://github.com/openshift/cluster-storage-operator/pull/169 first then - it will try to alert on metric that does not exist (which I think will result in no alerts but that is okay) . It may not matter in the end because both PRs needs to be picked.
@jsafrane: Some pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:
The following pull requests linked via external trackers have not merged:
These pull request must merge or be unlinked from the Bugzilla bug in order for it to move to the next state. Once unlinked, request a bug refresh with /bugzilla refresh
.
Bugzilla bug 1959546 has not been moved to the MODIFIED state.
As part of bug #1959546 and 1934180, it makes sense to merge current master branch.
Benefits:
Risks:
WIP: ~* needs discussion with QA~