On 10/17/19 08:39, Matt Riedemann wrote:
This was brought up in the nova meeting today [1] as:
"Do we have a particular stance on features to the libvirt driver for non-integration tested configurations, e.g. lxc [2] and xen [3], meaning if they are trivial enough do we just say the driver's quality warning on startup is sufficient to let them land since these are changes from casual contributors scratching an itch?"
We agreed to move this to the mailing list.
We don't have tempest jobs for the libvirt+lxc or libvirt+xen configurations (Citrix used to host 3rd party CI for the latter) and for the changes referenced they are from part-time contributors, minor and self-contained, and therefore I wouldn't expect them to build CI jobs for those configurations or stand up 3rd party CI.
There are cases in the past where we've held features out due to lack of CI, e.g. live migration support in the vSphere driver. That's quite a bit different in my opinion because (1) it's a much more complicated feature, (2) there already was 3rd party CI for the vSphere driver and (3) there is a big rich corporation maintaining the driver so I figured they could pony up the resources to make that testing happen (and it eventually did).
For these other small changes are we OK with letting them in knowing that the libvirt driver already logs a quality warning on startup for these configs [4]? In this case I am but wanted to ask and I don't think this sets a precedent as not all changes are equal.
I'm OK with this and I think the quality warning sets an appropriate expectation. As I mentioned in the meeting, my opinion is I think sufficiently trivial changes are fine on this basis. I also wouldn't try to set a hard precedent because each thing needs review on whether it's "trivial", but I support a spirit of accepting simple changes without requiring full blown 3rd party CI, given the quality warnings we have for the configs mentioned. i cant speak for the xen change but at least in the case of the lxc change i was able to test it myself and comment as such on the patch.
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 09:33 -0700, melanie witt wrote: the author also explained how they were testing and i was able to follow there steps to reproduce it. so while i dont think we shoudl have to deploy each change ourselves if it does not have automated ci if it trival and someone volunteers to test it then i think that is another reason to allow such changes. i think the openstack mantra of if its not in ci its probably broke still applies but we have that quality warning in the logs on start up which was mentioned so operator know what are getting into upfront.
-melanie
[1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova/2019/nova.2019-10-17-14.00.log....
[2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667976/ [3] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/687827/ [4] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/1a226aaa9e8c969ddfdfe198c36f7966b1f69...