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

WIP: Vendor/test containers/storage store load lock branch #4696

Closed

Conversation

saschagrunert
Copy link
Member

For testing purposes of containers/storage#493

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. size/M labels Dec 13, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: saschagrunert
To complete the pull request process, please assign rhatdan
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @rhatdan in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@saschagrunert
Copy link
Member Author

I'll give the remote client test another try.

@saschagrunert saschagrunert force-pushed the layer-store-load-lock branch 2 times, most recently from 9e22c38 to ecfa1c5 Compare December 17, 2019 09:58
@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #4697) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Dec 23, 2019
@saschagrunert saschagrunert force-pushed the layer-store-load-lock branch from ecfa1c5 to 76a5a70 Compare January 6, 2020 08:48
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 6, 2020
@saschagrunert saschagrunert force-pushed the layer-store-load-lock branch 2 times, most recently from a87ecfc to 1d2db59 Compare January 6, 2020 09:40
@saschagrunert saschagrunert force-pushed the layer-store-load-lock branch 2 times, most recently from 7b20a8d to 0a1f223 Compare January 6, 2020 09:45
@saschagrunert saschagrunert force-pushed the layer-store-load-lock branch 4 times, most recently from f95ff3f to b3c914f Compare January 7, 2020 11:42
@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #4866) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 15, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 24, 2020
@saschagrunert saschagrunert force-pushed the layer-store-load-lock branch 2 times, most recently from 036c5e4 to c2be2e9 Compare January 30, 2020 09:41
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL labels Jan 30, 2020
@saschagrunert saschagrunert deleted the layer-store-load-lock branch January 31, 2020 08:25
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 25, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 25, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants