[openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))
dpkshetty at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 09:23:04 UTC 2015
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Walter A. Boring IV <walter.boring at hp.com>
> 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
>>>> in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that
>>>> required to have a CI by the end of Kilo . This
>>>> should've been known by your engineers regardless of when you submitted
>>> 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
>> 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
>> reviewers that your driver needs to have a CI by Kilo.
>> And lastly I have made phone calls to companies that have shown zero
>> 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
>> "OpenStack person" is. I've left reminders on given voice mail
>> 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
> 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.
+1, we (GlusterFS) too discovered issues with live snapshot (being one of
the very few that uses it in cinder)
tests failing as part of CI and we fixed it 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev