Open Stack

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Dugger, Donald D <donald.d.dugger at intel.com
> wrote:

>  The current thought is that I will do the work to backport any change
> that are made to the nova tree that overlap the gantt tree.  I don’t see
> this as an impossible task.  Yes it will get harder as we make specific
> changes to gantt but, given that our first goal is to make gantt a drop in
> replacement for the nova scheduler there shouldn’t be that many gantt
> specific changes that would make backporting difficult so I think this is a
> doable path.
>

How are you tracking this today? I think its worth having a well documented
plan for this, as we will most likely have to keep syncing the two repos
for a while.

If all that is needed to cherry-pick a patch from nova to gantt is a
nova=>gantt rename these should be easy and a single +2 makes sense, but
for any patch that requires changes beyond that I think a full review
should be required.


>
>
> For the ordering, the unit tests and working functionality are indeed
> effectively the same, highest priority, I don’t have an issue with getting
> the unit tests working first.
>

Great, so I would prefer to see gantt gating on unit tests before landing
any other patches.

Whats the full plan for the steps to bootstrap?  It would be nice to have a
roadmap for this so we don't get bogged down in the weeds. Off the top of
my head I imagine it would be something like (I have a feeling I am missing
a few steps here):

1) Get unit tests working
2) Trim repo
3) Set up integration testing  (In parallel get gantt client working)
4) Resync with nova


>
>
> As far as trimming is concerned I would still prefer to do that later,
> after we have working functionality.  Since trimable files won’t have gantt
> specific changes keeping them in sync with the nova tree is easy.  Until we
> have working functionality we won’t really know that a file is not needed
> (I am constantly surprised by code that doesn’t do what I expect) and
> deleting a file after we are sure it’s not needed is easy.
>

Fair enough, I moved trimming after get unit tests working in the list
above.


>
>
> --
>
> Don Dugger
>
> "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
>
> Ph: 303/443-3786
>
>
>
> *From:* Joe Gordon [mailto:joe.gordon0 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:28 AM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [gantt] Sync up patches
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Dugger, Donald D <
> donald.d.dugger at intel.com> wrote:
>
>  All-
>
>
>
> I want to clear up some confusion I’m seeing in the reviews of these
> syncup patches.  These patches merely bring recent changes from the nova
> tree over to the gantt tree.  There is no attempt to actually change the
> code for gantt, that is a separate task.  Our first goal is to have the
> scheduler in gantt do exactly what the scheduler in nova does.  We want to
> be able to reliably change nova to use the gantt source tree as a drop in
> replacement, get that working before we start making gantt specific changes.
>
>
>
> As far as I can tell this is the first time we have tried to fork a
> repository without a freeze on the original codebase (when we split out
> cinder, nova-volume was frozen).  With this form of forking, syncing the
> repos becomes harder, and I am concerned with the sync method proposed
> here.  Once we do the big rename (%s/nova/gantt/g) in the gantt repo, we
> can't just cherry-pick patches across without any modifications (assuming
> we gate on the unit tests). So going forward how are we planning on keeping
> the two repos in sync?
>
>
>
> Is there an outline of the bootstrap process for Gantt? I would imagine
> the first goal (before landing any sync patches) would be to get the unit
> tests working.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The gantt tree probably has extra code that can be trimmed out later but,
> as long as that code exists in gantt I want to make it a synced up copy of
> the code in nova.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with the ordering proposed here. I would rather
> see gantt be trimmed first.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Don Dugger
>
> "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
>
> Ph: 303/443-3786
>
>
>
> *From:* Dugger, Donald D
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:48 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* [gantt] Sync up patches
>
>
>
> All-
>
>
>
> As threatened, I’ve pushed 24 patches to sync up the gantt tree to recent
> changes to the nova tree.  They’re all linked in a dependency chain
> starting at:
>
>
>
>                 https://review.openstack.org/66717
>
>
>
> It’s be good if we can get those reviewed soon.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Don Dugger
>
> "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
>
> Ph: 303/443-3786
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140115/c2b2abfa/attachment.html>