Hi all, Seems it's a good timing to bring back the discussion about the gerrit.
We want to do CI, and improve our code quality. One obvious way of doing and reduce the workload of devs is introduce a tool to enforce the process. I've checked out quite a few projects using gerrit, which would force you to ask for review, and validation before the code can be committed to the repo. Looks it's really a easier way for devs according what I've heard. Even our competitor laid out a very detail workflow based on the use of gerrit( https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gerrit_Workflow ). I guess it can make a good reference. Well, gerrit has been brought up a few times before. And now the new process we want to enforce just fits what gerrit(or other automation review/test/commit software) is for. Maybe it's the time for us to review the possibility of using a tool to enforce our commits and improve our code quality(as well as transfer knowledge) again? --Sheng On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> Like Chip, I am very concerned with this being dependent on a single > >> company, even if its the company that employs me. It isn't sustainable, > it > >> excludes others from contributing, and makes the project less > independent > >> because it depends on a single company's infrastructure. > > > > Agreed there. > > > >> > >> I'm also unclear on the answer to the question in the FAQ. The first > time I > >> read it, I got the impression that you were happy to bring it up on > hardware > >> at the ASF if the ASF wanted to own it. The second time I read it I > wondered > >> if you meant that Citrix was going to attempt to donate hardware. > >> > > Sorry if I did not make that clear. I meant the scripts/code that we > wrote are checked in publicly and we're willing to help set it up if ASF > provided the hardware. I have not approach Citrix on donating the actual > hardware. Although I can approach them if it speeds up the adoption > process. > > > >> Finally - what do you think you need from ASF infra to make this happen? > >> > > > > It's currently about 10 servers with two networks. One network is > static with IPMI to PXE boot the machines. The other network is the actual > data network that CloudStack uses. That's actually just enough for > XenServer and KVM. In order to accommodate for HyperV, Bare Metal, LXC, > (which we do not have any test cases in the automation suits currently) we > will need even more machines. We might be able to use nested > virtualization for the hypervisors to maintain server count at ten or a > little more than ten but we haven't explore that yet. > > > > The CI process is up and running on those machines but because we didn't > have CI running on master before, automation tests that were passing for > 4.3 are now broken again on 4.4. and master. I think Sudha already > reported on the list that QA is busy trying to fix all the automation tests > to bring CI on 4.4-forward and master back to 100% pass rate. > Unfortunately, it's been delaying our effort to put this out in the public > and let the community try this themselves. > > > > --Alex > > > > So the board just approved a 3 month budget, but the new board will > have to take up the remainder of the FY budget shortly after coming > into office. Perhaps worth coming up with an estimate of what this > will cost/need and getting it to president@ before that new budget is > taken up. > > --David >
