> Like Chip, I am very concerned with this being dependent on a single > company, even if its the company that employs me. It isn't sustainable, it > excludes others from contributing, and makes the project less independent > because it depends on a single company's infrastructure.
Agreed there. > > I'm also unclear on the answer to the question in the FAQ. The first time I > read it, I got the impression that you were happy to bring it up on hardware > at the ASF if the ASF wanted to own it. The second time I read it I wondered > if you meant that Citrix was going to attempt to donate hardware. > Sorry if I did not make that clear. I meant the scripts/code that we wrote are checked in publicly and we're willing to help set it up if ASF provided the hardware. I have not approach Citrix on donating the actual hardware. Although I can approach them if it speeds up the adoption process. > Finally - what do you think you need from ASF infra to make this happen? > It's currently about 10 servers with two networks. One network is static with IPMI to PXE boot the machines. The other network is the actual data network that CloudStack uses. That's actually just enough for XenServer and KVM. In order to accommodate for HyperV, Bare Metal, LXC, (which we do not have any test cases in the automation suits currently) we will need even more machines. We might be able to use nested virtualization for the hypervisors to maintain server count at ten or a little more than ten but we haven't explore that yet. The CI process is up and running on those machines but because we didn't have CI running on master before, automation tests that were passing for 4.3 are now broken again on 4.4. and master. I think Sudha already reported on the list that QA is busy trying to fix all the automation tests to bring CI on 4.4-forward and master back to 100% pass rate. Unfortunately, it's been delaying our effort to put this out in the public and let the community try this themselves. --Alex
