On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 05:01:49AM -0500, prasanna wrote:
> On 8 March 2013 22:24, Alex Huang wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to start off a branch specifically to do BVT on
> > simulator and devCloud so that we can at least have system vms/vrs
> > and business logic tested.
>
> Hey Alex - will you be w
On 8 March 2013 22:24, Alex Huang wrote:
>
> I'm going to start off a branch specifically to do BVT on simulator and
> devCloud so that we can at least have system vms/vrs and business logic
> tested.
Hey Alex - will you be writing new tests or revamping the simulator in
the bvt branch? On the
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2013, at 3:51 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chip Childers
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
Well, if we want it someone needs to do it. I'm looking at
On Mar 8, 2013, at 3:51 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
>>> Well, if we want it someone needs to do it. I'm looking at hadoop (as
>>> David suggested) [snip...]
>>
>> Take a look
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
>> Well, if we want it someone needs to do it. I'm looking at hadoop (as
>> David suggested) [snip...]
>
> Take a look at Hadoop's contributor guide [1], specifically the
> "Contr
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
> Well, if we want it someone needs to do it. I'm looking at hadoop (as
> David suggested) [snip...]
Take a look at Hadoop's contributor guide [1], specifically the
"Contributing your work" section. Hadoop is using Jira for patch
sub
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:18:46PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chip Childers
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 08:54:05AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd add:
>> >> > Large scale of our cod
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:18:46PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 08:54:05AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'd add:
> >> > Large scale of our code base
> >> > Difficulty of testing at scale without plenty of
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 08:54:05AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd add:
>> > Large scale of our code base
>> > Difficulty of testing at scale without plenty of hardware (which was a
>> > problem
>> > stated during incubation proposal)
On 3/8/13 11:30 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 08:54:05AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd add:
>> > Large scale of our code base
>> > Difficulty of testing at scale without plenty of hardware (which was
>>a problem
>> > stated during incubation proposal)
>>
>> I'm
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 08:54:05AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
> >
> > I'd add:
> > Large scale of our code base
> > Difficulty of testing at scale without plenty of hardware (which was a
> > problem
> > stated during incubation proposal)
>
> I'm going to start off a branch specifically to do BVT o
>
> I'd add:
> Large scale of our code base
> Difficulty of testing at scale without plenty of hardware (which was a problem
> stated during incubation proposal)
I'm going to start off a branch specifically to do BVT on simulator and
devCloud so that we can at least have system vms/vrs and busi
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:42:11AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
>> - I again push that we must use Gerrit to test the code before it
>> gets merge into the branch but I'll leave that for someone else to do that.
>
> So the first step to
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:42:11AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
> - I again push that we must use Gerrit to test the code before it
> gets merge into the branch but I'll leave that for someone else to do that.
So the first step to getting Gerrit, is for us to agree to using it and
to be able
> -Original Message-
> From: prasanna [mailto:srivatsav.prasa...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Prasanna Santhanam
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:53 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] BVT for CloudStack checkins
>
> On Thu, Ma
+1 for a staging area - a master branch that passes BVT would be a big
improvement.
-Original Message-
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik@citrix.com]
Sent: 07 March 2013 06:05
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] BVT for CloudStack checkins
+1 to the idea
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Murali Reddy wrote:
> On 06/03/13 11:52 PM, "Kelven Yang" wrote:
>
>>First +1 on BVT.
>>
>>Second, should we consider the idea of having a staging area for people to
>>check-in? Which is that making master always the stable(reasonable) branch
>>for main developmen
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:19:19AM +0530, Frank Zhang wrote:
> > - improve simulator for runtime testability
> > - customize to model and inject failures
> > - make a habit of writing tests around bug reports (I started tagging tests
> > since api_refactoring on JIRA already.
> > look for the integ
existing infra that would be
great.
> -Original Message-
> From: Kelven Yang [mailto:kelven.y...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:52 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] BVT for CloudStack checkins
>
> First +1 on BVT.
&
Also with out staging, features developed by non-commiters else where,
even with good code review in place there is always possibility of
regression after feature merge into master.
On 07/03/13 10:41 AM, "Murali Reddy" wrote:
>On 06/03/13 11:52 PM, "Kelven Yang" wrote:
>
>>First +1 on BVT.
>>
On 06/03/13 11:52 PM, "Kelven Yang" wrote:
>First +1 on BVT.
>
>Second, should we consider the idea of having a staging area for people to
>check-in? Which is that making master always the stable(reasonable) branch
>for main development, but whenever people make check-ins, it goes into
>staging
> - improve simulator for runtime testability
> - customize to model and inject failures
> - make a habit of writing tests around bug reports (I started tagging tests
> since api_refactoring on JIRA already.
> look for the integration-test label)
> - make integration testing easier using factories
gt; To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] BVT for CloudStack checkins
>
> First +1 on BVT.
>
> Second, should we consider the idea of having a staging area for people to
> check-in? Which is that making master always the stable(reasonable) branch
> for
First +1 on BVT.
Second, should we consider the idea of having a staging area for people to
check-in? Which is that making master always the stable(reasonable) branch
for main development, but whenever people make check-ins, it goes into
staging first, and we have maintainers(could be automatic)
Great to see you kick this off Alex! I have a few ideas for this and
had been looking for help as well ..
I had a draft lying around of an email you sent me long ago about
tiered testing and I think your proposal fits very well on this:
The tl;dr of that conversation was as below
- improve simul
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As most of you are aware, the master branch keeps getting broken by checkins
> for various reasons. Committers need to be more responsible about their
> checkins but I don't think we can depend on that happening. There are
> vari
>
> For a developer to checkin:
>
> - S/he must writes marvin tests for their feature and add it to
> the BVT.
>
> - S/he must run the checkin tests to verify everything works.
>
+1 to the above suggestions. there has been a lot of breakage on master
recently, this should elimina
Sorry, pervious mail is off topic of BVT.
+1 to BVT
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Zhang [mailto:frank.zh...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:41 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] BVT for CloudStack checkins
>
g some DB data in test IS NOT unit test. The point sounds like a
joke to me.
> -Original Message-
> From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:14 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] BVT for C
hypervisors and all the
cloudstack APIs.
So +1.
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:42 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] BVT for CloudStack checkins
>
> Hi All,
>
> A
Hi All,
As most of you are aware, the master branch keeps getting broken by checkins
for various reasons. Committers need to be more responsible about their
checkins but I don't think we can depend on that happening. There are various
reasons. The most obvious to me is that granting committe
31 matches
Mail list logo
