Open Stack

Thanks for posting this. My concern as a consumer of JJB is that reviewers
will lose interest in reviewing JJB patches and move on if JJB is no longer
a necessary component of OpenStack CI (I feel like we are already seeing
this today). A plan is needed to ensure that there are and will continue to
be reviewers who will be promoted and are interested in keeping this
project maintained into the future after OpenStack CI has moved on.

My hope is that OpenStack would continue to host this project and promote
additional reviewers to this project who are interested in keeping this
project going. What is the path forward for those of us who are interested
in keeping this project maintained?

Thanks,

Thanh

On 29 June 2015 at 14:00, James E. Blair <corvus at inaugust.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Jenkins Job builder is one of our more widely used projects.  It has
> served us extremely well and a lot of other projects have found it to be
> very useful.  Many of us are delighted and very proud of this.
>
> Recently I have proposed substantial changes to Zuul that I hope will,
> through the process of simplification, mean that we will eventually no
> longer need to use JJB in the OpenStack project.  However, I believe the
> project will continue to be useful for many others.  Meanwhile, others
> within the JJB community have started proposing major changes to JJB as
> well.  I wanted to talk about how development might proceed in order to
> provide minimal disruption for everyone.
>
> First, I think JJB should continue to at least maintain (and perhaps
> enhance) the current use case and syntax we are using in the OpenStack
> project infrastructure.  If major changes are to happen to JJB, I do not
> anticipate that we will want to make use of them in OpenStack, so we
> will be a good use case to ensure that we do not break compatibility for
> JJB's existing user base.
>
> Having said that, if the Infrastructure Council, including the current
> JJB cores, feel that the proposed major changes to JJB are desirable, it
> will approve the proposed specs, and those changes can proceed.  If the
> changes need to break backwards compatibility, we can create a feature
> branch for that work (or a stable branch) so that we can continue to
> support the current 1.0 syntax (however, if we can evolve JJB in one
> branch, all the better).
>
> Finally, assuming that we do accept the Zuulv3 spec and stop using JJB
> ourselves, I would expect us to remove JJB from the list of official
> OpenStack infrastructure projects, but owing to our responsibility to
> the community that has built up around it and our desire for its
> continued success, continue hosting development in OpenStack's project
> infrastructure as long as we are able and the future JJB development
> team desires.
>
> I hope that this sounds like a clear plan that benefits everyone.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
> OpenStack-Infra at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/attachments/20150706/51ef236c/attachment.html>