Open Stack

On 02/13/2014 04:24 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Dan Smith <dms at danplanet.com
> <mailto:dms at danplanet.com>> wrote:
> 
>     > I would also like to see CI (either third party or in the gate) for
>     > the nova driver before merging it. There's a chicken and egg problem
>     > here if its in the gate, but I'd like to see it at least proposed as a
>     > review.
> 
>     Yeah, I think that the existing nova-baremetal driver is kinda frozen in
>     a pre-deprecation state right now, which gives it a special pass on the
>     CI requirement. To me, I think it makes sense to avoid ripping it out
>     since it's already on ice.
> 
> 
> Except it's not actually frozen - at least one blueprint adding new
> functionality landed during Icehouse, which we still need to finish porting.
>   https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/baremetal-preserve-ephemeral
> 
>     However, for the Ironic driver, I would definitely rather see real CI up
>     _and_ working before we merge it. I think that probably means it will be
>     a post-icehouse thing at this point, unless that effort is farther along
>     than I think.
> 
>     At the Nova meetup this week, we had a serious discussion about ripping
>     out major drivers that might not make the deadline. I don't think it
>     makes sense to rip those out and merge another without meeting the
>     requirement.
> 
> 
> From Nova's perspective, I agree. Ironic is not as far along with CI as
> I had hoped we would be by this point. Now, it's possible that in the
> next month or so, we'll make a lot of headway there -- we're certainly
> going to try.
> 
> AIUI, even if Ironic meets all the other criteria, if we don't have the
> Nova driver landed and fully CI'd in time, we won't graduate. Is that
> correct?

Yes.  If the driver doesn't land because it lacks CI, then we can't
deprecate the existing driver.  That would mean Ironic would miss one of
the requirements for graduation.

> Since it's hard to tell tone from text, I'm not upset about this -- I
> knew from the start that we would need real CI for Ironic, it makes
> sense from a perspective of "protect the core", and I've been following
> the discussions around third-party testing. I just want to be clear
> about expectations so that we can allocate development resources
> appropriately. We might also want to consider what it means for
> baremetal if Ironic doesn't graduate...

If Ironic doesn't graduate, we leave nova-baremetal in for now, but give
it a pass on the CI requirement.  For Juno, we really just need to
consider completing Ironic integration as the only option.  Let's please
not let this turn into another nova-network / Neutron situation.  :-)

-- 
Russell Bryant