settingsLogin | Registersettings

[openstack-dev] [cinder] 3rd party ci names for use by official cinder mandated tests

0 votes

3rd party ci names is currently becoming a bit controversial for what we're trying to do in cinder: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101013/
The motivation for the above change is to aid developers understand what the 3rd party ci systems are testing in order to avoid confusion.
The goal is to aid developers reviewing cinder changes to understand which 3rd party ci systems are running official cinder-mandated tests and which are running unofficial/proprietary tests.
Since the use of "cinder" is proposed to be "reserved" (per change under review above), I'd like to propose the following for Cinder third-party names under the following conditions:
{Company-Name}-cinder-ci
* This CI account name is to be used strictly for official cinder-defined dsvm-full-{driver} tests.
* No additional tests allowed on this account.
o A different account name will be used for unofficial / proprietary tests.
* Account will only post reviews to cinder patches.
o A different account name will be used to post reviews in all other projects.
* Format of comments will be (as jgriffith commented in that review):

{company name}-cinder-ci

dsvm-full-{driver-name} pass/fail

dsvm-full-{other-driver-name} pass/fail

dsvm-full-{yet-another-driver-name} pass/fail

Thoughts?

Ramy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140701/49c21f25/attachment-0001.html

asked Jul 1, 2014 in openstack-dev by Asselin,_Ramy (4,700 points)   1 2 5
retagged Jan 28, 2015 by admin

3 Responses

0 votes

On 07/01/2014 01:13 PM, Asselin, Ramy wrote:
3rd party ci names is currently becoming a bit controversial for what we're trying to do in cinder: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101013/
The motivation for the above change is to aid developers understand what the 3rd party ci systems are testing in order to avoid confusion.
The goal is to aid developers reviewing cinder changes to understand which 3rd party ci systems are running official cinder-mandated tests and which are running unofficial/proprietary tests.
Since the use of "cinder" is proposed to be "reserved" (per change under review above), I'd like to propose the following for Cinder third-party names under the following conditions:
{Company-Name}-cinder-ci
* This CI account name is to be used strictly for official cinder-defined dsvm-full-{driver} tests.
* No additional tests allowed on this account.
o A different account name will be used for unofficial / proprietary tests.
* Account will only post reviews to cinder patches.
o A different account name will be used to post reviews in all other projects.
* Format of comments will be (as jgriffith commented in that review):

{company name}-cinder-ci

dsvm-full-{driver-name} pass/fail

dsvm-full-{other-driver-name} pass/fail

dsvm-full-{yet-another-driver-name} pass/fail

Thoughts?

Ramy


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Thanks for starting this thread, Ramy.

I too would like Cinder third party ci systems (and systems that might
test Cinder now or in the future) to weigh in and share their thoughts.

We do need to agree on a naming policy and whatever that policy is will
frame future discussions with new accounts (and existing ones) so let's
get some thoughts offered here so we all can live with the outcome.

Thanks again, Ramy, I appreciate your help on this as we work toward a
resolution.

Thank you,
Anita.

responded Jul 2, 2014 by Anita_Kuno (21,320 points)   3 3 4
0 votes

On 7/2/14, 11:00 AM, "Anita Kuno" wrote:

On 07/01/2014 01:13 PM, Asselin, Ramy wrote:
3rd party ci names is currently becoming a bit controversial for what
we're trying to do in cinder: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101013/
The motivation for the above change is to aid developers understand
what the 3rd party ci systems are testing in order to avoid confusion.
The goal is to aid developers reviewing cinder changes to understand
which 3rd party ci systems are running official cinder-mandated tests
and which are running unofficial/proprietary tests.
Since the use of "cinder" is proposed to be "reserved" (per change
under review above), I'd like to propose the following for Cinder
third-party names under the following conditions:
{Company-Name}-cinder-ci
* This CI account name is to be used strictly for official
cinder-defined dsvm-full-{driver} tests.
* No additional tests allowed on this account.
o A different account name will be used for unofficial / proprietary
tests.
* Account will only post reviews to cinder patches.
o A different account name will be used to post reviews in all other
projects.

I disagree with this approach. It will mean that if we want to run tests
on multiple projects (specifically for NetApp we're planning at least
Cinder and eventually Manilla), then we'd have to needlessly maintain 2
service accounts. This is extra work for both us, and the infra team. A
single account is perfectly capable of running different sets of tests on
different projects. The name of the account can then be more generalized
out to {Company-Name}-ci

  • Format of comments will be (as jgriffith commented in that
    review):

{company name}-cinder-ci

dsvm-full-{driver-name} pass/fail

dsvm-full-{other-driver-name} pass/fail

dsvm-full-{yet-another-driver-name} pass/fail

I do like this format. A single comment with each drivers' outcome on a
different line. That will help cut down on email and comment spam.

Thoughts?

Ramy


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Thanks for starting this thread, Ramy.

I too would like Cinder third party ci systems (and systems that might
test Cinder now or in the future) to weigh in and share their thoughts.

We do need to agree on a naming policy and whatever that policy is will
frame future discussions with new accounts (and existing ones) so let's
get some thoughts offered here so we all can live with the outcome.

Thanks again, Ramy, I appreciate your help on this as we work toward a
resolution.

Thank you,
Anita.


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jul 7, 2014 by Kerr,_Andrew (420 points)   1
0 votes

Thanks for your feedback. We discussed this at the cinder meeting and there wasn't much consensus on this approach [1].
I think the main issue is that some vendors' drivers are maintained by separate teams, so they would need a separate account per driver anyway.

Unfortunately, {Company-Name}-ci doesn't work for larger companies.
{Company-Name}-{Team-Name}-ci would be a middle ground, but it's not clear if there's support for that.

Ramy

[1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2014/cinder.2014-07-02-16.01.log.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Kerr, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Kerr at netapp.com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 7:31 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] 3rd party ci names for use by official cinder mandated tests

On 7/2/14, 11:00 AM, "Anita Kuno" wrote:

On 07/01/2014 01:13 PM, Asselin, Ramy wrote:
3rd party ci names is currently becoming a bit controversial for what
we're trying to do in cinder: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101013/
The motivation for the above change is to aid developers understand
what the 3rd party ci systems are testing in order to avoid confusion.
The goal is to aid developers reviewing cinder changes to understand
which 3rd party ci systems are running official cinder-mandated tests
and which are running unofficial/proprietary tests.
Since the use of "cinder" is proposed to be "reserved" (per change
under review above), I'd like to propose the following for Cinder
third-party names under the following conditions:
{Company-Name}-cinder-ci
* This CI account name is to be used strictly for official
cinder-defined dsvm-full-{driver} tests.
* No additional tests allowed on this account.
o A different account name will be used for unofficial / proprietary
tests.
* Account will only post reviews to cinder patches.
o A different account name will be used to post reviews in all other
projects.

I disagree with this approach. It will mean that if we want to run tests on multiple projects (specifically for NetApp we're planning at least Cinder and eventually Manilla), then we'd have to needlessly maintain 2 service accounts. This is extra work for both us, and the infra team. A single account is perfectly capable of running different sets of tests on different projects. The name of the account can then be more generalized out to {Company-Name}-ci

  • Format of comments will be (as jgriffith commented in that
    review):

{company name}-cinder-ci

dsvm-full-{driver-name} pass/fail

dsvm-full-{other-driver-name} pass/fail

dsvm-full-{yet-another-driver-name} pass/fail

I do like this format. A single comment with each drivers' outcome on a different line. That will help cut down on email and comment spam.

Thoughts?

Ramy


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Thanks for starting this thread, Ramy.

I too would like Cinder third party ci systems (and systems that might
test Cinder now or in the future) to weigh in and share their thoughts.

We do need to agree on a naming policy and whatever that policy is will
frame future discussions with new accounts (and existing ones) so let's
get some thoughts offered here so we all can live with the outcome.

Thanks again, Ramy, I appreciate your help on this as we work toward a
resolution.

Thank you,
Anita.


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jul 9, 2014 by Asselin,_Ramy (4,700 points)   1 2 5
...