Dima, +1 to "additional scrutiny is there because they want to get this right. Lets prove that their trust in us is not misplaced."
Thanks, Dims On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko <dborodae...@mirantis.com> wrote: > As you may have guessed, many Fuel developers were holding their breath > for the Technical Committee meeting today, where the decision on whether > to accept Fuel into Big Tent as an OpenStack project [0] was on the > agenda [1]. > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/199232 > [1] > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2015/tc.2015-11-10-20.02.log.html#l-115 > > Unfortunately, we'll have to hold breath for another week: our proposal > was not approved today, and the vote was postponed again. The good news > is, most of the TC members present were in favor and have acknowledged > that Fuel team has made significant progress in the right direction. > > The remaining objections are not new and not insurmountable: Jim Blair > has pointed out that it's not enough to have _most_ of Fuel repositories > covered by PTI compliant gate jobs, it has to be _all_ of them, and that > we still have a few gaps. Thierry was willing to let us get away with a > commitment that we complete this work by the end of the year, or be > removed from the projects if we fail. However, Jim's concerns were > seconded by Russel Bryant and Mark McClain who explicitly abstained > until, in Russel's words, "the Infra team is happy". Without their votes > and with 4 more TC members absent from the meeting, our proposal did not > get enough votes to pass. > > I have documented the specific gaps in the gate jobs in my comment to > the governance review linked above. To sum up, what's left to bring Fuel > into full compliance with PTI is: > > 1) Enable the currently non-voting gate jobs for the new repositories > extracted from fuel-web last week: fuel-menu, network-checker, shotgun. > > 2) Fix and enable the failing docs jobs in fuel-astute and fuel-docs. > > 3) Finish the unit test job for fuel-ostf. > > 4) Set up Ruby unit tests and syntax checks for fuel-astute and > fuel-nailgun-agent. > > While figuring out some of the job failures here is tricky, I believe we > should focus on remaining gaps and close all of them soon. It would be a > shame to have come this far and have our proposal rejected because of a > missing syntax check or a failure to compile HTML from RST. > > Jim's request to start work on running the more complex tests > (specifically, multi-node deployment tests from fuel-qa) turned out to > be more controversial, both because it is a new requirement that was > explicitly excluded during the previous round of discussions in July, > and because it's hard to objectively assess how much work, short of > complete implementation and full conversion, would be enough to prove > that there is a sufficient collaboration between Fuel and Infrastructure > teams. > > We had a good opening discussion on #openstack-dev about this after the > TC meeting [2]. Aleksandra Fedorova has mentioned that she actually > proposed a talk for Tokyo about exactly this topic (which was > unfortunately rejected), and promised to kick off a thread on > openstack-dev ML based on the research she has done so far. It's a > worthwhile long-term goal, I completely understand Infra team's desire > to make sure Fuel project can pull its own weight on OpenStack Infra, > and I will support efforts by Aleksandra and other Fuel Infra engineers > to fully align our CI with OpenStack Infra. > > [2] > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-dev/%23openstack-dev.2015-11-10.log.html#t2015-11-10T21:03:34 > > Still, I believe that making this a hard requirement for Fuel's > acceptance into Big Tent would be one step too far down a slippery slope > into a whole new vat of worms. Objective inclusion criteria such as > Project Requirements and Project Testing Interface are there to protect > OpenStack contributors from real and perceived favouritism. Declaring, > especially selectively, that meeting these criteria may be insufficient, > takes all the objectivity out of them. Fortunately, Jim did not insist > on making progress with Fuel multi-node tests a hard requirement and > confirmed that he will not block our proposal based on that. He still > wants us to finish setting up gates, though, fair is fair. > > Finally, the odd one out was the objection from Dean Troyer: "re Fuel, > I'm just not convinced it fits OpenStack's mission... we generally have > stayed away from being a distro". It was quickly dismissed by other > participants, but Dean still abstained, putting us one more vote short > of approval. I think this serves to illustrate that many prominent > members of OpenStack community still view Fuel as an OpenStack > distribution, even after the two years we've spent establishing Fuel as > a toolset for deployment and operation of OpenStack environments, > decoupled from whatever Linux and OpenStack distributions you choose to > deploy with it. I can only hope that Fuel is accepted into Big Tent and > more distributions are encouraged to use it, so that this particular > confusion is finally laid to rest. > > Some of you may be surprised by how much scrutiny Fuel is facing when > compared to smaller and younger projects. In a way, Fuel is a victim of > its own success: we've got so many components and such an extensive and > diverse CI coverage that bringing all that into compliance with The > OpenStack Way is really that much more work than it is for a typical new > project with just one git repo and a handful of unit test jobs. Don't be > discouraged by this additional delay: Fuel is big and has a lot of value > to bring into OpenStack on many levels, Technical Committee is > appreciative of that and supportive of our efforts, additional scrutiny > is there because they want to get this right. Lets prove that their > trust in us is not misplaced. > > -- > Dmitry Borodaenko > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev