On 02/13/2014 04:24 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Dan Smith <d...@danplanet.com > <mailto:d...@danplanet.com>> wrote: > > > I would also like to see CI (either third party or in the gate) for > > the nova driver before merging it. There's a chicken and egg problem > > here if its in the gate, but I'd like to see it at least proposed as a > > review. > > Yeah, I think that the existing nova-baremetal driver is kinda frozen in > a pre-deprecation state right now, which gives it a special pass on the > CI requirement. To me, I think it makes sense to avoid ripping it out > since it's already on ice. > > > Except it's not actually frozen - at least one blueprint adding new > functionality landed during Icehouse, which we still need to finish porting. > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/baremetal-preserve-ephemeral > > However, for the Ironic driver, I would definitely rather see real CI up > _and_ working before we merge it. I think that probably means it will be > a post-icehouse thing at this point, unless that effort is farther along > than I think. > > At the Nova meetup this week, we had a serious discussion about ripping > out major drivers that might not make the deadline. I don't think it > makes sense to rip those out and merge another without meeting the > requirement. > > > From Nova's perspective, I agree. Ironic is not as far along with CI as > I had hoped we would be by this point. Now, it's possible that in the > next month or so, we'll make a lot of headway there -- we're certainly > going to try. > > AIUI, even if Ironic meets all the other criteria, if we don't have the > Nova driver landed and fully CI'd in time, we won't graduate. Is that > correct?
Yes. If the driver doesn't land because it lacks CI, then we can't deprecate the existing driver. That would mean Ironic would miss one of the requirements for graduation. > Since it's hard to tell tone from text, I'm not upset about this -- I > knew from the start that we would need real CI for Ironic, it makes > sense from a perspective of "protect the core", and I've been following > the discussions around third-party testing. I just want to be clear > about expectations so that we can allocate development resources > appropriately. We might also want to consider what it means for > baremetal if Ironic doesn't graduate... If Ironic doesn't graduate, we leave nova-baremetal in for now, but give it a pass on the CI requirement. For Juno, we really just need to consider completing Ironic integration as the only option. Let's please not let this turn into another nova-network / Neutron situation. :-) -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
