On 07/17/2014 12:45 AM, Michael Still wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya > <vishvana...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 16, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:> >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 08:12:47AM -0700, Clark Boylan wrote: >>> >>>> I am worried that we would just regress to the current process because >>>> we have tried something similar to this previously and were forced to >>>> regress to the current process. >>> >>> IMHO the longer we wait between updating the gate to new versions >>> the bigger the problems we create for ourselves. eg we were switching >>> from 0.9.8 released Dec 2011, to 1.1.1 released Jun 2013, so we >>> were exposed to over 1 + 1/2 years worth of code churn in a single >>> event. The fact that we only hit a couple of bugs in that, is actually >>> remarkable given the amount of feature development that had gone into >>> libvirt in that time. If we had been tracking each intervening libvirt >>> release I expect the majority of updates would have had no ill effect >>> on us at all. For the couple of releases where there was a problem we >>> would not be forced to rollback to a version years older again, we'd >>> just drop back to the previous release at most 1 month older. >> >> This is a really good point. As someone who has to deal with packaging >> issues constantly, it is odd to me that libvirt is one of the few places >> where we depend on upstream packaging. We constantly pull in new python >> dependencies from pypi that are not packaged in ubuntu. If we had to >> wait for packaging before merging the whole system would grind to a halt. >> >> I think we should be updating our libvirt version more frequently vy >> installing from source or our own ppa instead of waiting for the ubuntu >> team to package it. > > I agree with Vish here, although I do recognise its a bunch of work > for someone. One of the reasons we experienced bugs in the gate is > that we jumped 18 months in libvirt versions in a single leap. If we > had flexibility of packaging, we could have stepped through each major > version along the way, and that would have helped us identify problems > in a more controlled manner.
We've talked about the 'CI the world plan' for a while, which this would be part of. That's a ton of work that no one is signed up for. But more importantly setting up and running the tests is < 10% of the time cost. Triage and fixing bugs long term is a real cost. As we've seen with the existing gate bugs we can't even close the bugs that are preventing ourselves from merging code - http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/, so I'm not sure which band of magical elves we'd expect to debug and fix these things. :) -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
