[openstack-dev] [fuel][puppet] Module Sync for Murano and Sahara
emilien.macchi at gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 04:07:03 UTC 2015
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that I have better understanding of the history of the commit, I
> understand that this was the best way through. The Sahara and Murano team's
> effort was invaluable in getting these fixed up and in a good state. I
> apologize that I have raised this as an issue. I was very concerned with
> the commits before knowing theses details, It was necessary to get the
> Let me clarify what I understand now was going on with them.
> A )Fuel had a number of better parts of the fork. there where two commits
>  proposed to puppet-sahara from Fuel that where not merged that
> reflected the better side of Fuel's fork.
> B) The Sahara sync commit  into fuel represented upstream puppet-sahara
> C) The Adapt commit  contained the two commits listed prior in A, kilo
> support, stuff we needed to ensure it worked in fuel and Noop tests.
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198744/
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192721/
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202045
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202195/
We will accept any patch that do not break backward compatibility for at
least one release.
> D) Fuel has effectively the only usable Murano module
> E) The Adapt commit  represented
> * a major over hall of the code quality to make it suitable to propose
> * fixes necessary to support kilo
> * cleanup for modular
> * Noop tests
If you consider to propose upstream, please follow this instructions to
bootstrap the basic code structure:
That will help you to have a compliant module from start.
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203731/
> With the improved clarity of what was going on, it made it much easier
> understand what I was reviewing and I'm glad of the current state.
> Here are my thoughts on what we can do better next time:
> * The commit and CR messages where not sufficient to understand entirely
> what was going on with the commits and how it was tested.
> * Separate out some of the changes into a commit chain to reduce the scope
> of each CR so that its easier to review.
> * For large reviews like this, we should let more reviewers know whats
> going on the ML early. These showed up on my radar late and of course, I
> freaked out.
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:51 AM Denis Egorenko <degorenko at mirantis.com>
>> Hi Andrew!
>> Sahara already merged. All CI tests were succeeded, also was built custom
>> iso  and ran bvt tests , which also were succeeded and we got +1 from
>> QA team.
>> For Murano we will do the same: resolve all comments, build custom iso,
>> run custom bvt and wait +1 from Fuel CI and QA team.
>> 2015-07-22 0:41 GMT+03:00 Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com>:
>>> I was looped into reviewing the sync commits for Murano and Sahara. Both
>>> are in terrible shape and risk feature freeze at this point.
>>> We need feed back from the authors here. What is actually required for
>>> Kilo support (if any)from the Murano and Sahara modules? What will happen
>>> if these slip the release. What can you do to simplify the review scope.
>>> The most we can reasonably review is 500 LOC in any short time (and that's
>>> pushing it).
>>> murano  is -2, this can't be merged; there is a adapt commit with out
>>> any sync commit. The only way we will accept the fork method is a sync from
>>> upstream +adapt as documented in  also it's neigh impossible to review
>>> something this large with out the separation.
>>> -2 There is no upstream repo with content, so where did this even come
>>> from? We are/where the authority for murano at present so I'm baffled as to
>>> where this came from.
>>> Possible way through: A) Split sync from adapt, hopefully the adapt is
>>> small enough to to review. B)Make only changes necessary for kilo support.
>>> Sahara 
>>> This is a RED flah here, I'm not even sure to call it -1, -2 or
>>> something entirely else. I had with Serg M, This is a sync of upstream,
>>> plus the code on review from fuel that is not merged into puppet-sahara.
>>> I'm going to say that our fork is in much better shape at this moment, and
>>> we should just let it be. We shouldn't sync this until the upstream code is
>>> Possible way through: C) The two outstanding commits inside the adapt
>>> commit need to be pulled out. They should be proposed right on top of the
>>> sync commit and should apply cleanly. I would prefer to see them as
>>> separate commits so they can be compared to the source more accurately.
>>> This should bring the adapt to something that could be reviewed. D) propose
>>> only the changes necessary to get kilo support.
>>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203731/
>>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202045
>>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202195/
>>> Andrew Woodward
>>> Fuel Community Ambassador
>>> Ceph Community
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> Best Regards,
>> Egorenko Denis,
>> Deployment Engineer
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> Andrew Woodward
> Fuel Community Ambassador
> Ceph Community
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev