Open Stack

<snip>

git clone nova
git clone  https://github.com/stackforge/nova-docker nova/nova/virt/docker

</snip>

in the real world.  this doesn't happen ever.


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Aaron Rosen <aaronorosen at gmail.com> wrote:

> <snip>
> you know, i've never worked anywhere that didn't roll their own distro.
> <snip>
>
> git clone nova
> git clone  https://github.com/stackforge/nova-docker nova/nova/virt/docker
>
> /me Rage Quit :)
>
>
> In all seriousness though, this was discussed in lengths on openstack-dev.
> I do feel your pain as an operator if you find that support for a feature
> you were using was removed. I think this is the only way to go though in
> order to continue raising the openstack bar.
>
> Best,
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:24 PM, matt <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>
>> operators perspective...
>>
>> you guys had a lot of levity from austin on up to grizzly.  not too many
>> folks were using openstack back then.  that's not the case anymore.  even
>> early adopters are exiting greenfield testing, and there's an upswing in
>> adoption all over.
>>
>> you can't cut features out without causing us a lot of work.  the lack of
>> an upgrade path is bad enough, we don't need to deal with containers and
>> hypervisors being dropped from mainline.  even if it's available from
>> stackforge... it's being dropped from mainline means something to us.
>> usually a hell of a lot of work.
>>
>> and if it means something to us that's different from what you intended,
>> then you shouldn't have dropped it.  you need to be more restrictive in
>> your choices as it relates to impacting major features.  now i'm going to
>> grant you the benefit of the doubt that you think docker is no longer up to
>> par for openstack's use.  but if that's not the case and this is just a
>> move to try to motivate developers to write better tempest tests, i'd
>> suggest you just burned down the barn to get the horses out.  We needed
>> that barn.  It was a good barn.  And now that it's gone we need to go
>> figure out where we're going to put our stuff.
>>
>> -matt
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Michael Still <mikal at stillhq.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:32 PM, matt <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I am all for enforcing CI.  But, my understanding of the workflow is
>>> code
>>> > doesn't go in without unit tests.  Frankly you guys removing sections
>>> of
>>> > code for not having proper unit testing is downright terrifying.
>>>  Doubly so
>>> > when it's major feature sets.
>>>
>>> You are misunderstanding what we mean by CI in this case. We have unit
>>> tests (although the coverage isn't always great, but its pretty much
>>> on par with every other software project), but what we're talking
>>> about here is tempest tests -- which are scenario tests. Things like
>>> does booting a virtual machine actually work. Does getconsolelog()
>>> actually return a console. etc etc.
>>>
>>> We're raising the bar on testing. That's always a good thing. Worrying
>>> about what we had in the past doesn't really help, because there's
>>> nothing I can do about that.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rackspace Australia
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20140502/538d27f3/attachment.html>