[openstack-dev] [fuel][puppet] Module Sync for Murano and Sahara
emilien.macchi at gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 04:04:16 UTC 2015
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Denis Egorenko <degorenko at mirantis.com>
> Hi Andrew!
> Sahara already merged. All CI tests were succeeded, also was built custom
> iso  and ran bvt tests , 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.
Private URL, we can't read the logs from Internet.
> 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).
>> murano  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  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 
>> 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.
>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203731/
>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202045
>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202195/
>> Andrew Woodward
>> Fuel Community Ambassador
>> Ceph Community
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> Best Regards,
> Egorenko Denis,
> Deployment Engineer
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev