Open Stack

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes
<lucasagomes at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Devananda van der Veen
> <devananda.vdv at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to bring up the topic of drivers which, for one reason or
> another,
> > are probably never going to have third party CI testing.
> >
> > Take for example the iBoot driver proposed here:
> >   https://review.openstack.org/50977
> >
> > I would like to encourage this type of driver as it enables individual
> > contributors, who may be using off-the-shelf or home-built systems, to
> > benefit from Ironic's ability to provision hardware, even if that
> hardware
> > does not have IPMI or another enterprise-grade out-of-band management
> > interface. However, I also don't expect the author to provide a full
> > third-party CI environment, and as such, we should not claim the same
> level
> > of test coverage and consistency as we would like to have with drivers in
> > the gate.
>
> +1
>
> >
> > As it is, Ironic already supports out-of-tree drivers. A python module
> that
> > registers itself with the appropriate entrypoint will be made available
> if
> > the ironic-conductor service is configured to load that driver. For what
> > it's worth, I recall Nova going through a very similar discussion over
> the
> > last few cycles...
> >
> > So, why not just put the driver in a separate library on github or
> > stackforge?
>
> I would like to have this drivers within the Ironic tree under a
> separated directory (e.g /drivers/staging/, not exactly same but kinda
> like what linux has in their tree[1]). The advatanges of having it in
> the main ironic tree is because it makes it easier to other people
> access the drivers, easy to detect and fix changes in the Ironic code
> that would affect the driver, share code with the other drivers, add
> unittests and provide a common place for development.
>
> We can create some rules for people who are thinking about submitting
> their driver under the staging directory, it should _not_ be a place
> where you just throw the code and forget it, we would need to agree
> that the person submitting the code will also babysit it, we also
> could use the same process for all the other drivers wich wants to be
> in the Ironic tree to be accepted which is going through ironic-specs.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/285599/


Linux has a very different model then OpenStack does, the article you
mention is talking about a whole separate git repo, along with a separate
(re: just OR, not exclusive or) set of maintainers. If you leave these
drivers in a staging directory would you still require two cores for the
code to land? Would this be a bandwidth burden (It can be in nova)?

On a related note, Ironic has one similarity the linux that most other
OpenStack projects don't have: Testing drivers requires specific hardware.
 Because of this linux doesn't claim to test every driver in the kernel, if
they did they would have a pretty impressive collection of hardware lying
around.


>
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140522/514c319b/attachment.html>