On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Walter A. Boring IV <walter.bor...@hp.com> wrote:
> On 03/23/2015 01:50 PM, Mike Perez wrote: > >> On 12:59 Mon 23 Mar , Stefano Maffulli wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote: >>> >>>> We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI >>>> deadlines >>>> in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that >>>> you're >>>> required to have a CI by the end of Kilo [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. This >>>> should've been known by your engineers regardless of when you submitted >>>> your >>>> driver. >>>> >>> Let's work to fix the CI bits for Liberty and beyond. I have the feeling >>> that despite your best effort to communicate deadlines, some quite >>> visible failure has happened. >>> >>> You've been clear about Cinder's deadlines, I've been trying to add them >>> also to the weekly newsletter, too. >>> >>> To the people whose drivers don't have their CI completed in time: what >>> do you suggest should change so that you won't miss the deadlines in the >>> future? How should the processes and tool be different so you'll be >>> successful with your OpenStack-based products? >>> >> Just to be clear, here's all the communication attempts made to vendors: >> >> 1) Talks during the design summit and the meetup on Friday at the summit. >> >> 2) Discussions at the Cinder midcycle meetups in Fort Collins and Austin. >> >> 4) Individual emails to driver maintainers. This includes anyone else who >> has >> worked on the driver file according to the git logs. >> >> 5) Reminders on the mailing list. >> >> 6) Reminders on IRC and Cinder IRC meetings every week. >> >> 7) If you submitted a new driver in Kilo, you had the annoying reminder >> from >> reviewers that your driver needs to have a CI by Kilo. >> >> And lastly I have made phone calls to companies that have shown zero >> responses >> to my emails or giving me updates. This is very difficult with larger >> companies because you're redirected from one person to another of who >> their >> "OpenStack person" is. I've left reminders on given voice mail >> extensions. >> >> I've talked to folks at the OpenStack foundation to get feedback on my >> communication, and was told this was good, and even better than previous >> communication to controversial changes. >> >> I expected nevertheless people to be angry with me and blame me >> regardless of >> my attempts to help people be successful and move the community forward. >> >> I completely agree here Mike. The Cinder cores, PTL, and the rest of > the > community have been talking about getting CI as a requirement for quite > some time now. > It's really not the fault of the Cinder PTL, or core members, that your > driver got pulled from the Kilo > release, because you had issues getting your CI up and stable in the > required time frame. > Mike made every possible attempt to let folks know, up front, that the > deadline was going to happen. > > Getting CI in place is critical for the stability of Cinder in general. > We have already benefited from > having 3rd Party CI in place. It wasn't but a few weeks ago that a change > that was submitted actually > broke the HP drivers. The CI we had in place discovered it, and brought > it to the surface. Without > having that CI in place for our drivers, we would be in a bad spot now. +1, we (GlusterFS) too discovered issues with live snapshot (being one of the very few that uses it in cinder) tests failing as part of CI and we fixed it [1] [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156940/ thanx, deepak
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
