On Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:37:26 Jan Kundrát wrote: > On Thursday, 29 January 2015 21:03:32 CEST, Eike Hein wrote: > > I think it's a real concern, and I'm wary of "we can patch > > it away" because carrying a huge custom patch delta for UI > > mods is what kept us from upgrading Bugzilla for multiple > > years. I think "is it realistic that we can maintain this > > and keep up with upstream even if Ben or Jan get hit by a > > bus" is an important question with regard to both proposals. > > That's a very good question, and a reason for why I am not patching Gerrit > with stuff not accepted upstream. I agree that carrying big custom patches > won't scale. > > So far, we don't have any patches at all. I'll be backporting stuff such as > the show-headers-prior-to-cpp from 2.11 because it is super-easy to do so, > and because 2.11 isn't released yet. > > We also have some JavaScript proof-of-concept for Bugzilla integration. You > can check its complexity at [1]. I managed to write that over a Sunday, and > I am definitely not a web guy. I had zero jQuery experience prior to this. > > > I have similar concerns with some of the promised benefits > > in the proposal because they strike me more of "we could", > > which is cool, but it's not "we will". E.g. if test build- > > ing precombined patches takes an OpenStack cluster - do we > > have one? Where are we going to get that horsepower? Can > > we keep it? > > Designing contingency plans is indeed important (see section 5 of that > proposal; it talks about managing infrastructure-as-code). You are also > right that the current infrastructure is best-effort and that KDE won't get > an SLA without paying for one. If we (KDE) need an SLA, we (the company the > cluster is hosted at) will be happy to be asked for a quote :). Or we (KDE) > can just host this stuff anywhere else and pay someone else. > > But it seems to me that we already have pretty clear consensus that we > absolutely do want a pre-approval CI coverage, and that the costs in HW are > worth it.
The rest of the discussion aside, this is something I want to strongly object to. Given how few of our community who have participated so far, I think it borders on pure falsehood to claim "clear consensus" on *anything*. I would put more like "some people want it", and I can certainly see the appeal. But from that to simply state "the costs in HW are worth it" (and conveniently forgetting cost in maintenance) is a very long step. > Does someone from KDE e.V. know whether we could get some free HW > resources from a commercial partner (hi RedHat/SuSE/Digia)? Do we have some > backup cash to e.g. rent VM time from Amazon/Rackspace/whatever in an > unlikely event that the current hosting platform is withdrawn with no prior > notice? > > About the "we could" vs. "we will" in general, I have to admit I'm slightly > confused by that. The proposal is careful to describe what is available > today, and to make a clear difference in saying what needs to be done in > future. Maybe some part needs clarification -- what parts do you think are > more of the yes-this-would-be-nice-but-I'm-worried nature? > > With kind regards, > Jan > > [1] https://gerrit.vesnicky.cesnet.cz/r/static/bugzilla.js
