On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Dugger, Donald D <donald.d.dug...@intel.com > wrote:
> The current thought is that I will do the work to backport any change > that are made to the nova tree that overlap the gantt tree. I don’t see > this as an impossible task. Yes it will get harder as we make specific > changes to gantt but, given that our first goal is to make gantt a drop in > replacement for the nova scheduler there shouldn’t be that many gantt > specific changes that would make backporting difficult so I think this is a > doable path. > How are you tracking this today? I think its worth having a well documented plan for this, as we will most likely have to keep syncing the two repos for a while. If all that is needed to cherry-pick a patch from nova to gantt is a nova=>gantt rename these should be easy and a single +2 makes sense, but for any patch that requires changes beyond that I think a full review should be required. > > > For the ordering, the unit tests and working functionality are indeed > effectively the same, highest priority, I don’t have an issue with getting > the unit tests working first. > Great, so I would prefer to see gantt gating on unit tests before landing any other patches. Whats the full plan for the steps to bootstrap? It would be nice to have a roadmap for this so we don't get bogged down in the weeds. Off the top of my head I imagine it would be something like (I have a feeling I am missing a few steps here): 1) Get unit tests working 2) Trim repo 3) Set up integration testing (In parallel get gantt client working) 4) Resync with nova > > > As far as trimming is concerned I would still prefer to do that later, > after we have working functionality. Since trimable files won’t have gantt > specific changes keeping them in sync with the nova tree is easy. Until we > have working functionality we won’t really know that a file is not needed > (I am constantly surprised by code that doesn’t do what I expect) and > deleting a file after we are sure it’s not needed is easy. > Fair enough, I moved trimming after get unit tests working in the list above. > > > -- > > Don Dugger > > "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale > > Ph: 303/443-3786 > > > > *From:* Joe Gordon [mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:28 AM > > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [gantt] Sync up patches > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Dugger, Donald D < > donald.d.dug...@intel.com> wrote: > > All- > > > > I want to clear up some confusion I’m seeing in the reviews of these > syncup patches. These patches merely bring recent changes from the nova > tree over to the gantt tree. There is no attempt to actually change the > code for gantt, that is a separate task. Our first goal is to have the > scheduler in gantt do exactly what the scheduler in nova does. We want to > be able to reliably change nova to use the gantt source tree as a drop in > replacement, get that working before we start making gantt specific changes. > > > > As far as I can tell this is the first time we have tried to fork a > repository without a freeze on the original codebase (when we split out > cinder, nova-volume was frozen). With this form of forking, syncing the > repos becomes harder, and I am concerned with the sync method proposed > here. Once we do the big rename (%s/nova/gantt/g) in the gantt repo, we > can't just cherry-pick patches across without any modifications (assuming > we gate on the unit tests). So going forward how are we planning on keeping > the two repos in sync? > > > > Is there an outline of the bootstrap process for Gantt? I would imagine > the first goal (before landing any sync patches) would be to get the unit > tests working. > > > > > > > > The gantt tree probably has extra code that can be trimmed out later but, > as long as that code exists in gantt I want to make it a synced up copy of > the code in nova. > > > > I'm not sure if I agree with the ordering proposed here. I would rather > see gantt be trimmed first. > > > > > > -- > > Don Dugger > > "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale > > Ph: 303/443-3786 > > > > *From:* Dugger, Donald D > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Subject:* [gantt] Sync up patches > > > > All- > > > > As threatened, I’ve pushed 24 patches to sync up the gantt tree to recent > changes to the nova tree. They’re all linked in a dependency chain > starting at: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/66717 > > > > It’s be good if we can get those reviewed soon. > > > > -- > > Don Dugger > > "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale > > Ph: 303/443-3786 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev