Open Stack

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015, at 04:38 PM, John Griffith wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
> 
> Anteaya was kind enough to ask in the Cinder channel about some tests
> that were added to the gate for SheepDog [1].  I would like to know
> why there's no process for the projects that are impacted by these
> changes to have input?  At the very least if someone is adding test
> requirements against the Cinder project for example it should have
> votes on the review from Cinder Core members.
I approved this change. The only project directly affected is the
sheepdog devstack plugin. They are testing that the plugin works. I
don't understand why this is a problem. This test was not added to
Cinder.
> 
> Nobody on the Cinder team seems to have had any information regarding
> this change (or the Ceph config that was added for that matter).  It
> seems odd to me that I hear discussions about the burden on infra
> resources regarding the number of projects in OpenStack and what's
> taking place there but then at the same time that group merges things
> like this?  If there have been discussions with the Cinder PTL in
> these cases then forgive me, I wasn't aware and I'll just move along.
Again this change did not affect Cinder. Not sure why this is
problematic. There is a second change,
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153868, that has not been approved that
would run this test against Cinder, but a project-config core reviewer
reached out to Cinder before approving that change. This appears to be
what you would like to see so thats good.

The ceph job was added in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147559/ and a
quick scan of comments does show it to have had positive votes from a
Cinder core.
> 
> My other question is, why is anybody setting up and maintaining their
> own CI system?  Couldn't I just setup a stackforge project that
> deploys my software in an Instance and push it to infra as well?
> Doesn't this seem a bit wrong to anybody else, using Foundation
> resources for my own gain?
For open source projects that don't require special hardware we have
wanted more people to cooperate with Infra to run tests upstream. Third
party CI is a great solution for when you cannot redistribute certain
pieces of software or specific hardware is required. But in general if
it is open source and we can test it in our clouds then we would at
least like to talk about doing it that way.

There are some rough edges with that particularly if you don't want
things to gate or be similar to gating due to clean check. Basically we
need a way to report results back to Gerrit as a user other than Jenkins
so that the Jenkins results are still used for gating (there are
probably other alternatives too but the second account method is in
development).
> 
> Also, I think it creates some confusion; we either have a reference
> implementation or we don't.  If somebody wants to propose changing
> what the reference implementation is that's fine but that should be
> handled by the affected project not by a change submitted to the infra
> projects.
> 
> I've actually been of the opinion that devstack and our internal gate
> is bloated with plugins and options and should actually be scaled
> down.  We should certainly provide mechanisms for any plugin to be
> configured via devstack for example but I don't think the code belongs
> "in" devstack; it should be externally maintained in my opinion... but
> that's a whole separate rant I suppose.
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154605/
> 
Hope this helps clarify things.

Clark