[openstack-dev] [release][infra][puppet][stable] Re: [Release-job-failures] Release of openstack/puppet-nova failed

Doug Hellmann doug at doughellmann.com
Mon May 22 19:43:10 UTC 2017

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-05-22 19:16:34 +0000:
> On 2017-05-22 12:31:49 -0600 (-0600), Alex Schultz wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> > > On 2017-05-22 09:06:26 -0600 (-0600), Alex Schultz wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >> We ran into this for the puppet-module-build check job so I created a
> > >> puppet-agent-install builder.  Perhaps the job needs that added to it
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Problem here being these repos share the common tarball jobs used
> > > for generating python sdists, with a little custom logic baked into
> > > run-tarball.sh[*] for detecting and adjusting when the repo is for a
> > > Puppet module. I think this highlights the need to create custom
> > > tarball jobs for Puppet modules, preferably by abstracting this
> > > custom logic into a new JJB builder.
> > 
> > I assume you mean a problem if we added this builder to the job
> > and it fails for some reason thus impacting the python jobs?
> My concern is more that it increases complexity by further embedding
> package selection and installation choices into that already complex
> script. We'd (Infra team) like to get more of the logic out of that
> random pile of shell scripts and directly into job definitions
> instead. For one thing, those scripts are only updated when we
> regenerate our nodepool images (at best once a day) and leads to
> significant job inconsistencies if we have image upload failures in
> some providers but not others. In contrast, job configurations are
> updated nearly instantly (and can even be self-tested in many cases
> once we're on Zuul v3).
> > As far as adding to the builder to the job that's not really a
> > problem and wouldn't change those jobs as they don't reference the
> > installed puppet executable.
> It does risk further destabilizing the generic tarball jobs by
> introducing more outside dependencies which will only be used by a
> scant handful of the projects running them.
> > The problem I have with putting this in the .sh is that it becomes
> > yet another place where we're doing this package installation (we
> > already do it in puppet openstack in
> > puppet-openstack-integration). I originally proposed the builder
> > because it could be reused if a job requires puppet be available.
> > ie. this case. I'd rather not do what we do in the builder in a
> > shell script in the job and it seems like this is making it more
> > complicated than it needs to be when we have to manage this in the
> > long term.
> Agreed, I'm saying a builder which installs an unnecessary Puppet
> toolchain for the generic tarball jobs is not something we'd want,
> but it would be pretty trivial to make puppet-specific tarball jobs
> which do use that builder (and has the added benefit that
> Puppet-specific logic can be moved _out_ of run-tarballs.sh and into
> your job configuration instead at that point).

That approach makes sense.

When the new job template is set up, let me know so I can add it to the
release repo validation as a known way to release things.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list