[openstack-dev] [fuel][puppet] Module Sync for Murano and Sahara

Denis Egorenko degorenko at mirantis.com
Wed Jul 22 13:48:17 UTC 2015

Hi Andrew!

Sahara already merged. All CI tests were succeeded, also was built custom
iso [1] and ran bvt tests [2], which also were succeeded and we got +1 from
QA team.
For Murano we will do the same: resolve all comments, build custom iso, run
custom bvt and wait +1 from Fuel CI and QA team.



2015-07-22 0:41 GMT+03:00 Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com>:

> I was looped into reviewing the sync commits for Murano and Sahara. Both
> are in terrible shape and risk feature freeze at this point.
> We need feed back from the authors here. What is actually required for
> Kilo support (if any)from the Murano and Sahara modules? What will happen
> if these slip the release. What can you do to simplify the review scope.
> The most we can reasonably review is 500 LOC in any short time (and that's
> pushing it).
> Synopsis:
> murano [1] is -2, this can't be merged; there is a adapt commit with out
> any sync commit. The only way we will accept the fork method is a sync from
> upstream +adapt as documented in [2] also it's neigh impossible to review
> something this large with out the separation.
> -2 There is no upstream repo with content, so where did this even come
> from? We are/where the authority for murano at present so I'm baffled as to
> where this came from.
> Possible way through: A) Split sync from adapt, hopefully the adapt is
> small enough to to review. B)Make only changes necessary for kilo support.
> Sahara [3][4]
> This is a RED flah here, I'm not even sure to call it -1, -2 or something
> entirely else. I had with Serg M, This is a sync of upstream, plus the code
> on review from fuel that is not merged into puppet-sahara. I'm going to say
> that our fork is in much better shape at this moment, and we should just
> let it be. We shouldn't sync this until the upstream code is landed.
> Possible way through: C) The two outstanding commits inside the adapt
> commit need to be pulled out. They should be proposed right on top of the
> sync commit and should apply cleanly. I would prefer to see them as
> separate commits so they can be compared to the source more accurately.
> This should bring the adapt to something that could be reviewed. D) propose
> only the changes necessary to get kilo support.
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203731/
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/How_to_contribute#Adding_new_puppet_modules_to_fuel-library
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202045
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202195/
> --
> --
> Andrew Woodward
> Mirantis
> Fuel Community Ambassador
> Ceph Community
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Best Regards,
Egorenko Denis,
Deployment Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150722/bc558872/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list