Open Stack

Dima,

+1 to "additional scrutiny is there because they want to get this
right. Lets prove that their trust in us is not misplaced."

Thanks,
Dims

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko
<dborodaenko at mirantis.com> wrote:
> As you may have guessed, many Fuel developers were holding their breath
> for the Technical Committee meeting today, where the decision on whether
> to accept Fuel into Big Tent as an OpenStack project [0] was on the
> agenda [1].
>
> [0] https://review.openstack.org/199232
> [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2015/tc.2015-11-10-20.02.log.html#l-115
>
> Unfortunately, we'll have to hold breath for another week: our proposal
> was not approved today, and the vote was postponed again. The good news
> is, most of the TC members present were in favor and have acknowledged
> that Fuel team has made significant progress in the right direction.
>
> The remaining objections are not new and not insurmountable: Jim Blair
> has pointed out that it's not enough to have _most_ of Fuel repositories
> covered by PTI compliant gate jobs, it has to be _all_ of them, and that
> we still have a few gaps. Thierry was willing to let us get away with a
> commitment that we complete this work by the end of the year, or be
> removed from the projects if we fail. However, Jim's concerns were
> seconded by Russel Bryant and Mark McClain who explicitly abstained
> until, in Russel's words, "the Infra team is happy". Without their votes
> and with 4 more TC members absent from the meeting, our proposal did not
> get enough votes to pass.
>
> I have documented the specific gaps in the gate jobs in my comment to
> the governance review linked above. To sum up, what's left to bring Fuel
> into full compliance with PTI is:
>
> 1) Enable the currently non-voting gate jobs for the new repositories
> extracted from fuel-web last week: fuel-menu, network-checker, shotgun.
>
> 2) Fix and enable the failing docs jobs in fuel-astute and fuel-docs.
>
> 3) Finish the unit test job for fuel-ostf.
>
> 4) Set up Ruby unit tests and syntax checks for fuel-astute and
> fuel-nailgun-agent.
>
> While figuring out some of the job failures here is tricky, I believe we
> should focus on remaining gaps and close all of them soon. It would be a
> shame to have come this far and have our proposal rejected because of a
> missing syntax check or a failure to compile HTML from RST.
>
> Jim's request to start work on running the more complex tests
> (specifically, multi-node deployment tests from fuel-qa) turned out to
> be more controversial, both because it is a new requirement that was
> explicitly excluded during the previous round of discussions in July,
> and because it's hard to objectively assess how much work, short of
> complete implementation and full conversion, would be enough to prove
> that there is a sufficient collaboration between Fuel and Infrastructure
> teams.
>
> We had a good opening discussion on #openstack-dev about this after the
> TC meeting [2]. Aleksandra Fedorova has mentioned that she actually
> proposed a talk for Tokyo about exactly this topic (which was
> unfortunately rejected), and promised to kick off a thread on
> openstack-dev ML based on the research she has done so far. It's a
> worthwhile long-term goal, I completely understand Infra team's desire
> to make sure Fuel project can pull its own weight on OpenStack Infra,
> and I will support efforts by Aleksandra and other Fuel Infra engineers
> to fully align our CI with OpenStack Infra.
>
> [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-dev/%23openstack-dev.2015-11-10.log.html#t2015-11-10T21:03:34
>
> Still, I believe that making this a hard requirement for Fuel's
> acceptance into Big Tent would be one step too far down a slippery slope
> into a whole new vat of worms. Objective inclusion criteria such as
> Project Requirements and Project Testing Interface are there to protect
> OpenStack contributors from real and perceived favouritism. Declaring,
> especially selectively, that meeting these criteria may be insufficient,
> takes all the objectivity out of them. Fortunately, Jim did not insist
> on making progress with Fuel multi-node tests a hard requirement and
> confirmed that he will not block our proposal based on that. He still
> wants us to finish setting up gates, though, fair is fair.
>
> Finally, the odd one out was the objection from Dean Troyer: "re Fuel,
> I'm just not convinced it fits OpenStack's mission... we generally have
> stayed away from being a distro". It was quickly dismissed by other
> participants, but Dean still abstained, putting us one more vote short
> of approval. I think this serves to illustrate that many prominent
> members of OpenStack community still view Fuel as an OpenStack
> distribution, even after the two years we've spent establishing Fuel as
> a toolset for deployment and operation of OpenStack environments,
> decoupled from whatever Linux and OpenStack distributions you choose to
> deploy with it. I can only hope that Fuel is accepted into Big Tent and
> more distributions are encouraged to use it, so that this particular
> confusion is finally laid to rest.
>
> Some of you may be surprised by how much scrutiny Fuel is facing when
> compared to smaller and younger projects. In a way, Fuel is a victim of
> its own success: we've got so many components and such an extensive and
> diverse CI coverage that bringing all that into compliance with The
> OpenStack Way is really that much more work than it is for a typical new
> project with just one git repo and a handful of unit test jobs. Don't be
> discouraged by this additional delay: Fuel is big and has a lot of value
> to bring into OpenStack on many levels, Technical Committee is
> appreciative of that and supportive of our efforts, additional scrutiny
> is there because they want to get this right. Lets prove that their
> trust in us is not misplaced.
>
> --
> Dmitry Borodaenko
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims