<div dir="ltr">
<p class="">As an Engineer running the NetApp CI, I thought it would be a good time to chime in here. While I have many opinions around this whole process, I will try my best to avoid any judgement and minimize ratholes.</p>
<p class="">Over the past year, we have implemented a scalable CI system that is now running tests against 5 NetApp drivers for every patch (including stable branches). We have already prevented numerous bugs, some that would completely break OpenStack/Netapp integrations and other times we caught issues with the gate before it had time to break. We promptly worked with the code contributors in each of those cases. We have run over 50k test runs in total.</p>
<p class="">Now I realize *those* CI tests have nothing to do with the FibreChannel drivers specifically, however, it took significant resources to get where we are now and CI has been our top priority. In the case of FC, we do test it regularly but atm we only have one FC capable server and 2 FC capable storage controllers. We have been working diligently with IT to acquire more for CI use but as most of you know, FC gear is not cheap and IT can take time. I would agree that we haven’t been panicking and calling IT every day at 8am under the belief that the community was aware of our situation and was ok with these drivers taking a bit longer. I might add that the FC drivers are just a wrapper around our iscsi drivers (the only difference being the zoning decorator).</p>
<p class="">Now enough about NetApp, I wish folks would consider their perspective on the situation. It’s a huge ask to implement a CI system that tests every patch and not everyone has unlimited resources. Third party CI systems should be a huge deal for the third party, they should care way more than Cinder core. Although I understand Cinder not wanting deployers to attempt to use broken code in their project, I am certain a vendor does not want broker integration. </p>
<p class="">Given the nights and weekends I have spent on third party CI, I would appreciate some empathy on the matter. I’m sure there are plenty of other folks that would agree. Please ask me any questions out right and I will give you an answer. I may have been confused but I was under the impression that NetApp FC had an exception to the deadline given the many conversations that had occurred.</p>
<p class="">-Alex </p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Mike Perez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thingee@gmail.com" target="_blank">thingee@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 21:51 Mon 23 Mar , Rochelle Grober wrote:<br>
> I’d like to suggest that the myriad wiki pages and spreadsheets for Third<br>
> Party CI also be consolidated to a more manageable count. Just looking for<br>
> maintainers contact, you can find information (often conflicting) in<br>
> Stackalytics, on the ThirdPartyDrivers page, on the Cinder PTL’s google doc<br>
> and who knows where else for the Neutron maintainers. Even finding which<br>
> tests to run takes linking through a number of Cinder wiki pages.<br>
><br>
> The teams have done a great job documenting a process that started out as<br>
> lore, but I think the beginning of L would be a great time to revisit and<br>
> reorganize the documentation for clarity, conciseness and single locations<br>
> (version controlled) of critical information.<br>
<br>
</span>More than happy to update my doc. My doc was purely for me to expose<br>
a non-editable doc of what I was seeing since I made myself the point of<br>
contact for Cinder CI's. My spreadsheet came before the thirdparty CI<br>
maintainer wiki page had any useful information on it. I got the contacts from<br>
the git logs of the people who actually worked on the drivers. I also was<br>
dealing with cases where a vendor hired an outside company to do their driver,<br>
which made things difficult for contact.<br>
<br>
The one wiki page people should pay attention to is the Cinder Third Party wiki<br>
page which now has a link to the status page:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers</a><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Mike Perez<br>
<br>
__________________________________________________________________________<br>
</font></span><span class="im HOEnZb">OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>