Open Stack

On 11 May 2016, at 13:11, Robert Collins wrote:
>
> So, given that that is the model - why is language part of it? Yes,
> there are minimum overheads to having a given language in CI - we need
> to be able to do robust reliable builds [or accept periodic downtime
> when the internet is not cooperating], and that sets a lower fixed
> cost, varying per language. Right now we support Python, Java,
> Javascript, Ruby in CI (as I understand it - infra focused folk please
> jump in here :)).

+1000

this is what the whole thread should be about

> Here is a straw man list of requirements:
>  - Reliable builds: the ability to build and test without talking to
> the internet at all.
>  - Packagable: the ability to take a source tree for a project, do
> some arbitrary transform and end up with a folder structure that can
> be placed on another machine, with any needed dependencies, and work.
> [Note, this isn't the same as 'packagable in a way that makes Red Hat
> and Canonical and Suse **happy**, but thats something we can be sure
> that those orgs are working on with language providers already ]
>  - FL/OSS
>  - Compatible with ASL v2 source code. [e.g. any compiler doesn't
> taint its output]
>  - Can talk oslo.messaging's message format


The great news is that we don't have to have the straw man--we actually are building the real list (and you've hit several of them).

At the infra team meeting this week we talked through a few of these (mostly focused on the dependency management issues first), and we've started collecting notes on https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/golang-infra-issues-to-solve about the basic infra things that need to be figured out.

--John


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160511/90567914/attachment.pgp>