Open Stack

On 13/11/13 13:49 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA256
>
>Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...] Proposed Incubation requirements
>> ================================ Once something becomes an
>> integrated project, it's important that they are able to run in the
>> gate.
>>
>> Both devstack and devstack-gate now support hooks, so with a couple
>> of days of work any project in stackforge could build a gate job
>> which sets up a devstack of their configuration, including their
>> code, running some project specific test they feel is appropriate
>> to ensure they could run in the gate environment.
>>
>> This would ensure an incubated project works with OpenStack global
>> requirements, or if it requires something new, that's known very
>> clearly before incubation.
>
>That makes sense, my only concern with it is, how much support from
>QA/Infra would actually be needed *before* incubation can even be
>requested. One of the ideas behind the incubation status is to allow
>incubated projects to tap into common resources (QA, infra, release
>management...) as they cover the necessary ground before being fully
>integrated. Your proposal sounds like they would also need some
>support even before being incubated.

Incubation requirements should be related to the project maturity,
scope and fit within OpenStack, IMHO. Integration with the whole
OpenStack infrastructure should come later since it also depends on
the acceptance of the project as part of OpenStack incubated projects.

That being said, the integration, where it makes sense, should be a
requirement, i.e use of oslo.config.

I see the incubation process as a way to evaluate if a project fits
under OpenStack's umbrella.


>Also does it place a requirement that all projects wanting to request
>incubation to be placed in stackforge ? That sounds like a harsh
>requirement if we were to reject them.

TBH, I thought it was. If it is not, we should make it clear, unless I
completely missed something.

>
>(sidenote: I'm planning to suggest we create an "emerging technology"
>label for projects that are (1) in stackforge, (2) applied for
>incubation but got rejected purely for community maturity reasons.
>Projects under this label would potentially get some limited space at
>summits to gain more visibility. Designate belongs to that category,
>but without a clear label it seems to fall in the vast bucket of
>openstack-related projects and not gaining more traction. Not sure we
>can leverage it to solve the issue here though).

Sounds interesting. Separate thread?

>
>> Proposed Graduation requirements ================================
>> All integrated projects should be in the integrated gate, as this
>> is the only way we provably know that they can all work together,
>> at the same level of requirements, in a consistent way.
>>
>> During incubation landing appropriate tests in Tempest is fair
>> game. So the expectation would be that once a project is incubated
>> they would be able to land tests in tempest. Before integrated
>> we'd need to ensure the project had tests which could take part in
>> the integrated gate, so as soon as a project is voted integrated,
>> it has some working integrated gate tests. (Note: there is actually
>> a symmetric complexity here, to be worked out later).
>
>+1 -- I think we already made that decision for any future graduation.

+1

>> [...] Raised Questions ================ - what about existing
>> incubated projects, what would be their time frame to get with this
>> new program - what about existing integrated projects that
>> currently don't exist with either an upgrade or gate story? - what
>> about an upgrade deprecation path (i.e. nova-network => neutron,
>> nova-baremetal => ironic)
>
>The transition for existing incubated/integrated projects is an
>interesting question. I think it's fine to require that
>currently-incubated projects get into the integrated gate before they
>can graduate.

I think this is important and it *has* to be a strong requirement.

> For currently-integrated projects that are not up to
>snuff, I think we should strongly suggest that they fix it before the
>icehouse release, otherwise the next TC might be driven to make
>unpleasant decisions.

+1

Cheers,
FF

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco