On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 03/10/2016 05:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2016-03-10 16:09:44 -0500 (-0500), Dan Prince wrote: > >> This seems to be the week people want to pile it on TripleO. Talking > >> about upstream is great but I suppose I'd rather debate major changes > >> after we branch Mitaka. :/ > > [...] > > > > I didn't mean to pile on TripleO, nor did I intend to imply this was > > something which should happen ASAP (or even necessarily at all), but > > I do want to better understand what actual benefit is currently > > derived from this implementation vs. a more typical third-party CI > > (which lots of projects are doing when they find their testing needs > > are not met by the constraints of our generic test infrastructure). > > > >> With regards to Jenkins restarts I think it is understood that our job > >> times are long. How often do you find infra needs to restart Jenkins? > > > > We're restarting all 8 of our production Jenkins masters weekly at a > > minimum, but generally more often when things are busy (2-3 times a > > week). For many months we've been struggling with a thread leak for > > which their development team has not seen as a priority to even > > triage our bug report effectively. At this point I think we've > > mostly given up on expecting it to be solved by anything other than > > our upcoming migration off of Jenkins, but that's another topic > > altogether. > > > >> And regardless of that what if we just said we didn't mind the > >> destructiveness of losing a few jobs now and then (until our job > >> times are under the line... say 1.5 hours or so). To be clear I'd > >> be fine with infra pulling the rug on running jobs if this is the > >> root cause of the long running jobs in TripleO. > > > > For manual Jenkins restarts this is probably doable (if additional > > hassle), but I don't know whether that's something we can easily > > shoehorn into our orchestrated/automated restarts. > > > >> I think the "benefits are minimal" is bit of an overstatement. The > >> initial vision for TripleO CI stands and I would still like to see > >> individual projects entertain the option to use us in their gates. > > [...] > > > > This is what I'd like to delve deeper into. The current > > implementation isn't providing you with any mechanism to prevent > > changes which fail jobs running in the tripleo-test cloud from > > merging to your repos, is it? You're still having to manually > > inspect the job results posted by it? How is that particularly > > different from relying on third-party CI integration? > > > > As for other projects making use of the same jobs, right now the > > only convenience I'm aware of is that they can add check-tripleo > > pipeline jobs in our Zuul layout file instead of having you add it > > to yours (which could itself reside in a Git repo under your > > control, giving you even more flexibility over those choices). In > > fact, with a third-party CI using its own separate Gerrit account, > > you would be able to leave clear -1/+1 votes on check results which > > is not possible with the present solution. > > > > So anyway, I'm not saying that I definitely believe the third-party > > CI route will be better for TripleO, but I'm not (yet) clear on what > > tangible benefit you're receiving now that you lose by switching to > > that model. > > > > FWIW, I think third-party CI probably makes sense for TripleO. > Practically speaking we are third-party CI right now - we run our own > independent hardware infrastructure, we aren't multi-region, and we > can't leave a vote on changes. Since the first two aren't likely to > change any time soon (although I believe it's still a long-term goal to > get to a place where we can run in regular infra and just contribute our > existing CI hardware to the general infra pool, but that's still a long > way off), and moving to actual third-party CI would get us the ability > to vote, I think it's worth pursuing. > > As an added bit of fun, we have a forced move of our CI hardware coming > up in the relatively near future, and if we don't want to have multiple > days (and possibly more, depending on how the move goes) of TripleO CI > outage we're probably going to need to stand up a new environment in > parallel anyway. If we're doing that it might make sense to try hooking > it in through the third-party infra instead of the way we do it today. > Hopefully that would allow us to work out the kinks before the old > environment goes away. > > Anyway, I'm sure we'll need a bunch more discussion about this, but I > wanted to chime in with my two cents. > Do you have any ETA on when your outage would be? Is it before or after the summit in Austin?
Personally, I'm going to attend a few TripleO design session where ever possible in Austin. It would be great to maybe have a fishbowl session about it. > -Ben > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
