Open Stack

On 07/17/2014 12:45 AM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya
> <vishvananda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:>
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 08:12:47AM -0700, Clark Boylan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am worried that we would just regress to the current process because
>>>> we have tried something similar to this previously and were forced to
>>>> regress to the current process.
>>>
>>> IMHO the longer we wait between updating the gate to new versions
>>> the bigger the problems we create for ourselves. eg we were switching
>>> from 0.9.8 released Dec 2011, to  1.1.1 released Jun 2013, so we
>>> were exposed to over 1 + 1/2 years worth of code churn in a single
>>> event. The fact that we only hit a couple of bugs in that, is actually
>>> remarkable given the amount of feature development that had gone into
>>> libvirt in that time. If we had been tracking each intervening libvirt
>>> release I expect the majority of updates would have had no ill effect
>>> on us at all. For the couple of releases where there was a problem we
>>> would not be forced to rollback to a version years older again, we'd
>>> just drop back to the previous release at most 1 month older.
>>
>> This is a really good point. As someone who has to deal with packaging
>> issues constantly, it is odd to me that libvirt is one of the few places
>> where we depend on upstream packaging. We constantly pull in new python
>> dependencies from pypi that are not packaged in ubuntu. If we had to
>> wait for packaging before merging the whole system would grind to a halt.
>>
>> I think we should be updating our libvirt version more frequently vy
>> installing from source or our own ppa instead of waiting for the ubuntu
>> team to package it.
> 
> I agree with Vish here, although I do recognise its a bunch of work
> for someone. One of the reasons we experienced bugs in the gate is
> that we jumped 18 months in libvirt versions in a single leap. If we
> had flexibility of packaging, we could have stepped through each major
> version along the way, and that would have helped us identify problems
> in a more controlled manner.

We've talked about the 'CI the world plan' for a while, which this would
be part of. That's a ton of work that no one is signed up for.

But more importantly setting up and running the tests is < 10% of the
time cost. Triage and fixing bugs long term is a real cost. As we've
seen with the existing gate bugs we can't even close the bugs that are
preventing ourselves from merging code -
http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/, so I'm not sure which band
of magical elves we'd expect to debug and fix these things. :)

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140717/01548f79/attachment.pgp>