Open Stack

On 03/23/2015 01:50 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
> On 12:59 Mon 23 Mar     , Stefano Maffulli wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote:
>>> We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI deadlines
>>> in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that you're
>>> required to have a CI by the end of Kilo [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. This
>>> should've been known by your engineers regardless of when you submitted your
>>> driver.
>> Let's work to fix the CI bits for Liberty and beyond. I have the feeling
>> that despite your best effort to communicate deadlines, some quite
>> visible failure has happened.
>>
>> You've been clear about Cinder's deadlines, I've been trying to add them
>> also to the weekly newsletter, too.
>>
>> To the people whose drivers don't have their CI completed in time: what
>> do you suggest should change so that you won't miss the deadlines in the
>> future? How should the processes and tool be different so you'll be
>> successful with your OpenStack-based products?
> Just to be clear, here's all the communication attempts made to vendors:
>
> 1) Talks during the design summit and the meetup on Friday at the summit.
>
> 2) Discussions at the Cinder midcycle meetups in Fort Collins and Austin.
>
> 4) Individual emails to driver maintainers. This includes anyone else who has
>     worked on the driver file according to the git logs.
>
> 5) Reminders on the mailing list.
>
> 6) Reminders on IRC and Cinder IRC meetings every week.
>
> 7) If you submitted a new driver in Kilo, you had the annoying reminder from
>     reviewers that your driver needs to have a CI by Kilo.
>
> And lastly I have made phone calls to companies that have shown zero responses
> to my emails or giving me updates. This is very difficult with larger
> companies because you're redirected from one person to another of who their
> "OpenStack person" is.  I've left reminders on given voice mail extensions.
>
> I've talked to folks at the OpenStack foundation to get feedback on my
> communication, and was told this was good, and even better than previous
> communication to controversial changes.
>
> I expected nevertheless people to be angry with me and blame me regardless of
> my attempts to help people be successful and move the community forward.
>
I completely agree here Mike.   The Cinder cores, PTL, and the rest of the
community have been talking about getting CI as a requirement for quite 
some time now.
It's really not the fault of the Cinder PTL, or core members, that your 
driver got pulled from the Kilo
release, because you had issues getting your CI up and stable in the 
required time frame.
Mike made every possible attempt to let folks know, up front, that the 
deadline was going to happen.

Getting CI in place is critical for the stability of Cinder in general. 
   We have already benefited from
having 3rd Party CI in place.  It wasn't but a few weeks ago that a 
change that was submitted actually
broke the HP drivers.   The CI we had in place discovered it, and 
brought it to the surface.   Without
having that CI in place for our drivers, we would be in a bad spot now. 
   In other words,  it should be a top
priority for vendors to get CI in place, if for the selfish reason of 
protecting their code!!!

That being said, I look forward to seeing folks submit their drivers 
back in the early L time
frame.   If my driver got pulled for K, It would be my top priority to 
get CI working NOW,
and the day L opens up, I have my driver patch up, with CI reporting.

Thanks Mike for all of your efforts on this,
Walt