Rohit
Any headway on ESX 5.5? I've done this many times before using
cloudstack and esx, but i was using esx as parent hypervisor.
The challenge for me was being able to automatically deploy and
configure the vSphere + ESXi env. I managed to get the whole flow
working with bash script, puppet, VMA and while it works its not pretty.
The challenge was the networking bit.
Last but not least, consider using cloudstack to test cloudstack. i.e.
master env, would use cloudstack projects and spinup smaller envs with
KVM, Xen and VmWare bound to each project.
Regards
ilya
On 4/24/15 7:53 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
Daan,
On 24-Apr-2015, at 3:53 pm, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rohit, the issues you mention are not as painful if we release in a
two week schedule as the period of creating a fix to seeing it in a
release will be shorter. Some releases will be broken for some people,
I don't think we can prevent this. The target we are aiming for is to
big to cover it completely.
I agree with you, but I think there are pros and cons to both approaches and
for this to work it needs to be able to walk first before it can run.
For this to work we need an automated QA system, to solve this Abhi is working
on it for past few weeks and will be adding more non-hardware tests (simulator
ones) to travis. In my free time, I’m trying to setup a nested virtualized
environment where we can test ACS against Xen, KVM and VMware on top on KVM. So
far, I’m able to run XenServer 6.2+6.5 and KVM on top of KVM with vmx
(intel-vt) enabled, and making some progress with running ESX on KVM (I’m able
to run ESX 6.0 on KVM now, but not ESX 5.x which is something I’m exploring). I
hope we'll have something working soon that is fairly fast and easy to
reproduce.
Your points are valid, though.
.1 a three person release team makes sense. I have been really happy
with the help I got from Pierre-Luc and I think David can do with help
the coming time as well.
.2 Hopefully people won't need to test every release so extensively
anymore as the changes become smaller. (and my initial remark the
above applies as well)
By having too many releases we’ll have to deal with too many upgrade path
issues and users will spread across different versions which will create an
issue for maintainers who are supporting users -- one solution for this problem
can be that we introduce a concept of LTS release that is either maintained by
the community (which can be difficult) or some interested stakeholders, for
users that would prefer upgrading everytime there is a new CloudStack release.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
I think we need to have a faster release management to speed up process in
general, and for that I propose that we have at least two co-pilots for the
release manager who would support them with things like reviewing/merging
patches, creating RC candidates etc whenever necessary. Having only one person
as a release manager can become a bottleneck for a speedy release.
The other issue is getting people to test a (release) branch, fix bugs and
expect a review/result in 72 hours. This has usually failed if people are busy
and not getting enough time for this. As an example, I think 4.5 is delayed
because it lacked people actively testing it or fixing issues, or when issues
were found only around the RC testing period which delayed RC voting by 1-2
weeks every time that happened. (I’ll post details about where I think we are
wrt 4.5 in another thread).
On 17-Apr-2015, at 12:49 am, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com> wrote:
Today during the CloudStackdays we did a round table about Release
management targeting the next 4.6 releases.
Quick bullet point discussions:
ideas to change release planning
- Plugin contribution is complicated because often a new plugin involve
change on the core:
- ex: storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code
- There is an idea of going on a 2 weeks release model which could
introduce issue the database schema.
- Database schema version should be different then the application
version.
- There is a will to enforce git workflow in 4.6 and trigger simulator
job on PullRequest.
- Some people (I'm part of them) are concerned on our current way of
supporting and back porting fixes to multiple release (4.3.x, 4.4.x,
4.5.x). But the current level of confidence against latest release is low,
so that need to be improved.
So, the main messages is that w'd like to improve the release velocity, and
release branch stability. so we would like to propose few change in the
way we would add code to the 4.6 branch as follow:
- All new contribution to 4.6 would be thru Pull Request or merge request,
which would trigger a simulator job, ideally only if that pass the PR would
be accepted and automatically merged. At this time, I think we pretty much
have everything in place to do that. At a first step we would use
simulator+marvin jobs then improve tests coverage from there.
Please comments :-)
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software
Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure
Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show
it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email
in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales.
ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated
under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company
incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue
SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded
under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
--
Daan
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software
Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure
Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show
it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email
in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales.
ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated
under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company
incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue
SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded
under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
