Open Stack

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 30/11/15 12:51, Ruby Loo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 30 November 2015 at 10:19, Derek Higgins <derekh at redhat.com
>> <mailto:derekh at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi All,
>>
>>          A few months tripleo switch from its devtest based CI to one
>>     that was based on instack. Before doing this we anticipated
>>     disruption in the ci jobs and removed them from non tripleo projects.
>>
>>          We'd like to investigate adding it back to heat and ironic as
>>     these are the two projects where we find our ci provides the most
>>     value. But we can only do this if the results from the job are
>>     treated as voting.
>>
>>
>> What does this mean? That the tripleo job could vote and do a -1 and
>> block ironic's gate?
>>
>>
>>          In the past most of the non tripleo projects tended to ignore
>>     the results from the tripleo job as it wasn't unusual for the job to
>>     broken for days at a time. The thing is, ignoring the results of the
>>     job is the reason (the majority of the time) it was broken in the
>>     first place.
>>          To decrease the number of breakages we are now no longer
>>     running master code for everything (for the non tripleo projects we
>>     bump the versions we use periodically if they are working). I
>>     believe with this model the CI jobs we run have become a lot more
>>     reliable, there are still breakages but far less frequently.
>>
>>     What I proposing is we add at least one of our tripleo jobs back to
>>     both heat and ironic (and other projects associated with them e.g.
>>     clients, ironicinspector etc..), tripleo will switch to running
>>     latest master of those repositories and the cores approving on those
>>     projects should wait for a passing CI jobs before hitting approve.
>>     So how do people feel about doing this? can we give it a go? A
>>     couple of people have already expressed an interest in doing this
>>     but I'd like to make sure were all in agreement before switching it
>> on.
>>
>> This seems to indicate that the tripleo jobs are non-voting, or at least
>> won't block the gate -- so I'm fine with adding tripleo jobs to ironic.
>> But if you want cores to wait/make sure they pass, then shouldn't they
>> be voting? (Guess I'm a bit confused.)
>>
>
> +1
>
> I don't think it hurts to turn it on, but tbh I'm uncomfortable with the
> mental overhead of a non-voting job that I have to manually treat as a
> voting job. If it's stable enough to make it a voting job, I'd prefer we
> just make it voting. And if it's not then I'd like to see it be made stable
> enough to be a voting job and then make it voting.


This is roughly where I sit as well -- if it's non-voting, experience tells
me that it will largely be ignored, and as such, isn't a good use of
resources.

I haven't looked at tripleo or tripleoci in a while, so I wont assume that
my recollection of the CI jobs bears any resemblance to what exists today.
Could you explain what areas of ironic (or its subprojects) will be covered
by these tests?  If they are already covered by existing tests, then I
don't see the benefit of adding another job; conversely, if this is testing
areas we don't cover today, then there's probably value in running
tripleoci in a voting fashion for now and then moving that coverage into
ironic's project testing.

-Deva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151130/b3c5940e/attachment.html>