I also think this would improve the ability to manually test a PR. *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > +1 for "on PR" RPMs! > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul Angus" <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Sent: Saturday, 20 February, 2016 12:31:56 > > Subject: RE: [Proposal] Concerning open PRs > > > Unfortunately the $dayjob keeps getting in the way of our CI work, > however wrt > > to PRs - we should have Jenkins build and keep the RPM artefacts > relating to a > > pull request (for a fix length of time). This will enable 'users' to > deploy an > > environment based on those RPMs and test it. The requirement to build > the RPMs > > from a PR in Git is an ENORMOUS barrier to non-devs. > > > > I don't know how to configure this in Jenkins (without breaking more > than I fix) > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > [ShapeBlue]<http://www.shapeblue.com> > > Paul Angus > > VP Technology , ShapeBlue > > > > > > d: +44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 > > 0540<tel:+44%20203%20617%200528%20|%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540> | > > m: +44 7711 418784<tel:+44%207711%20418784> > > > > e: paul.an...@shapeblue.com | t: > > @cloudyangus<mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com%20|%20t:%20@cloudyangus> > | > > w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > > > > a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK > > > > > > [cid:image581dbc.png@b52485ae.42bb289d] > > > > > > 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. > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wilder Rodrigues [mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com] > > Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 8:40 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [Proposal] Concerning open PRs > > > > Hi there all, > > > > @Sebastian: it might look a bit extreme, but I believe that at the > moment it > > might be easier to get at least 5 of the community members investing 1 > day per > > week to run automated tests on PRs, and hopefully merging them, than get > 1 > > member to work 100% having a proper CI in place. > > > > Please don't get me wrong: CI is important and we need that! I just > don't see > > how the community can collaborate to get it done within a couple of > weeks. For > > example, how could I, with 5-6 hours per week, help on that? I know that > with > > such time I can help reviewing starting automated tests on a couple of > PRs. > > > > @Jeff: yes, perhaps having to test a PR before creating one is too much, > because > > not everybody has a test environment to run automated tests. However, the > > "nobody likes testing" should not be the way we start with this idea. > > > > What if we try the following: > > > > * If the person creating a PR has tested his/her changes either > > manually/automated with simulator/hardware and shows some evidences, then > > having a review + integration tests from a comm member - whilst CI is > not done, > > should be enough to get a LGTM and the PR should be tested. > > > > But a LGTM on code review only should not suffice. > > > > For UI changes that have been tested by the author with screenshots on > the PR, a > > code review with 1 LGTM should be enough to merge it. > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > Cheers, > > Wilder > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 19 Feb 2016, at 19:43, Ramanath Katru <ramanath.ka...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Can we get the CI proposed by Bharat up onto the ASF servers? While may > not be > >> complete or even if its running with issues, why not start it over > there and > >> have everyone fix it to get it up and running? > >> > >> Ram Katru > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 2:07 PM > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Concerning open PRs > >> > >> > >>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Wilder Rodrigues < > wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> > >>> It’s been a long time, but the Wolverine is not dead yet. ;) > >>> > >>> Currently we have 175 opened PRs, which we all agree to be a lot, > given the fact > >>> that few people, if any, are testing/merging them. I have been a bit > off the > >>> radar, but from next week I will start helping to get some of those > PRs tested > >>> and, hopefully, merged. > >>> > >>> In order to get the community working as an unit, I would like to > propose the > >>> following: > >>> > >>> * One should only create a PR after testing an existing PR. > >>> - By testing I mean… testing. Not just looking into it and saying > “LGTM”. Manual > >>> tests should also count, with screenshots attached to the PR. > >>> > >>> That will make those with test environment pitch in and help, and in > addition > >>> might also decrease the frenzy for creating PRs which occasionally > won’t be > >>> tested within a month time - or longer. > >>> > >>> For others not creating PRs that often, like me, we should help > testing at least > >>> 1 PR per week. > >>> > >>> Being a bit more blunt now, if a PR is created but the person does not > >>> contribute with testing an existing one, the new PR should be closed. > >>> > >>> What do you think? > >> > >> That sounds too extreme to my taste. > >> > >> Bottom line, folks who submit PR need to stay on top of them and address > >> comments. > >> > >> But then we need to have that CI in place > >> > >> -sebastien > >> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Wilder > >> > > 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/> >
