On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes <lucasago...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Devananda van der Veen > <devananda....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like to bring up the topic of drivers which, for one reason or > another, > > are probably never going to have third party CI testing. > > > > Take for example the iBoot driver proposed here: > > https://review.openstack.org/50977 > > > > I would like to encourage this type of driver as it enables individual > > contributors, who may be using off-the-shelf or home-built systems, to > > benefit from Ironic's ability to provision hardware, even if that > hardware > > does not have IPMI or another enterprise-grade out-of-band management > > interface. However, I also don't expect the author to provide a full > > third-party CI environment, and as such, we should not claim the same > level > > of test coverage and consistency as we would like to have with drivers in > > the gate. > > +1 > > > > > As it is, Ironic already supports out-of-tree drivers. A python module > that > > registers itself with the appropriate entrypoint will be made available > if > > the ironic-conductor service is configured to load that driver. For what > > it's worth, I recall Nova going through a very similar discussion over > the > > last few cycles... > > > > So, why not just put the driver in a separate library on github or > > stackforge? > > I would like to have this drivers within the Ironic tree under a > separated directory (e.g /drivers/staging/, not exactly same but kinda > like what linux has in their tree[1]). The advatanges of having it in > the main ironic tree is because it makes it easier to other people > access the drivers, easy to detect and fix changes in the Ironic code > that would affect the driver, share code with the other drivers, add > unittests and provide a common place for development. > > We can create some rules for people who are thinking about submitting > their driver under the staging directory, it should _not_ be a place > where you just throw the code and forget it, we would need to agree > that the person submitting the code will also babysit it, we also > could use the same process for all the other drivers wich wants to be > in the Ironic tree to be accepted which is going through ironic-specs. > > Thoughts? > > [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/285599/ Linux has a very different model then OpenStack does, the article you mention is talking about a whole separate git repo, along with a separate (re: just OR, not exclusive or) set of maintainers. If you leave these drivers in a staging directory would you still require two cores for the code to land? Would this be a bandwidth burden (It can be in nova)? On a related note, Ironic has one similarity the linux that most other OpenStack projects don't have: Testing drivers requires specific hardware. Because of this linux doesn't claim to test every driver in the kernel, if they did they would have a pretty impressive collection of hardware lying around. > > > Cheers, > Lucas > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
