UPSTREAM: cadvisor bumps

[jimmidyson]

@smarterclayton @pmorie

Supersedes #5548

[liggitt]

@jimmidyson what's different? the same two upstream PRs are listed

[jimmidyson]

@liggitt Something was wrong with the other PR's bumps - deleted files still existed, e.g. statvfs.c. Easier to clean up in new PR than amend other commits IMO.

[liggitt]

k

[smarterclayton]

Referenced from #5107

[pmorie]

@jimmidyson One nit -- will you add the sha1 for each bump to the commit message for these? I believe that is the convention we use in origin for such things.

@deads2k Do you want these commits named differently aside from the sha1 of the bump?

[liggitt]

should be bump(godep name): sha. no UPSTREAM needed for bumps to shared godeps

[jimmidyson]

Reused @smarterclayton's commit messages... Will amend later.

[jimmidyson]

Do you want each bump to each godep name in a separate commit as well? e.g. bump(github.com/google/cadvisor), bump(github.com/docker/libcontainer), etc? These were in same upstream PRs so bundled together right now.

[smarterclayton]

LGTM [merge], we can live with the poorly named commits because a rebase should update them.

[smarterclayton]

[test]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, OpenShift Bot [email protected]
wrote:

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge FAILURE (
https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/merge_pull_requests_origin/3900/
)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5581 (comment).

[pmorie]

[test]

[liggitt]

github.com bower flake, re[test][merge]

[openshift-bot]

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pull_requests_origin/6673/) (Image: devenv-rhel7_2631)

[openshift-bot]

Evaluated for origin merge up to 111da86

[openshift-bot]

Evaluated for origin test up to 111da86

[openshift-bot]

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/test SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pull_requests_origin/6673/)