Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
Mike, Did not see a response to this request. Please respond, we can discuss in the Cinder Core meeting this week. -Original Message- From: ClaytonLuce, Timothy [mailto:timothy.claytonl...@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 5:27 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) Mike, I request the same consideration being given to the Oracle driver team: The tag for Kilo in Cinder has already happened, so it's too late to revert. We may be able to revisit this in Kilo RC, but I want to see your CI reporting reliably now to then to Cinder reviews. We are going to try by hook or crook to scrounge/borrow equipment to put a quick and dirty CI together and get it reliably reporting. Tim From: Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) On 12:33 Fri 20 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: I'd like to point out that for NetApp FC drivers NetApp has been in discussions and updating progress on these drivers since their submission. I will point out a discussion in the Nov Core meeting where I brought up the challenge around FC environments and the response I received: snip NetApp has in good faith been working toward implementing a CI for FC, I won't go into the challenges of spending $$ for lab equipment to build out a scalable quality CI system but suffice it to say the lab equipment is on order and scheduled for arrival the first part of April, at which point we can put in place the CI for FC. 1) We've been talking about CI's since Feburary 2014. That's really too bad this took so long. The deadline itself has been overly announced on the mailing list and Cinder IRC meetings. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 2) We have a number of FC drivers today that had no problem meeting this deadline that was expressed in November 2014. 3) I've barely received updates from Netapp folks on progress here. I'm the only point of contact, so if you weren't talking to me, then it's unknown. I've expressed this to a number of your engineers and in my announcements about the CI deadline [8] I had to engage with Netapp to get updates, no one came to me with updates. The last update I heard from one of your engineers was, we bought the hardware, but it's just sitting there. That is not acceptable with us being past the deadline, and shows a clear sign of this not being a priority. NetApp has been very forthcoming in our progress and have gotten all our other CI systems in place for 7-mode iSCSI/NFS, cDOT iSCSI/NFS and E-Series. I respectfully request that NetApp FC be removed from this list of drivers to be removed for Kilo and placed back in the releaes and we can negotiate an agreed upon time as to when the CI system for these drivers will be in place. There will be no negotiating on what is an acceptable timeline for Netapp. What we all agreed to as a *community* back at the summit and Cinder IRC meeting was it. [1] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers [2] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-01-21-16.00.log.html [3] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-04-16.04.log.html [4] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-18-16.00.log.html [5] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-25-16.00.log.html [6] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-04-16.00.log.html [7] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-18-16.00.log.html [8] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/054614.html -- Mike Perez __ 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 __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
Timothy You are very welcome to add it to the meeting agenda if you feel it should be discussed - the agenda is open and managed on the wiki. On 23 March 2015 at 15:15, ClaytonLuce, Timothy timothy.claytonl...@netapp.com wrote: Mike, Did not see a response to this request. Please respond, we can discuss in the Cinder Core meeting this week. -Original Message- From: ClaytonLuce, Timothy [mailto:timothy.claytonl...@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 5:27 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) Mike, I request the same consideration being given to the Oracle driver team: The tag for Kilo in Cinder has already happened, so it's too late to revert. We may be able to revisit this in Kilo RC, but I want to see your CI reporting reliably now to then to Cinder reviews. We are going to try by hook or crook to scrounge/borrow equipment to put a quick and dirty CI together and get it reliably reporting. Tim From: Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) On 12:33 Fri 20 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: I'd like to point out that for NetApp FC drivers NetApp has been in discussions and updating progress on these drivers since their submission. I will point out a discussion in the Nov Core meeting where I brought up the challenge around FC environments and the response I received: snip NetApp has in good faith been working toward implementing a CI for FC, I won't go into the challenges of spending $$ for lab equipment to build out a scalable quality CI system but suffice it to say the lab equipment is on order and scheduled for arrival the first part of April, at which point we can put in place the CI for FC. 1) We've been talking about CI's since Feburary 2014. That's really too bad this took so long. The deadline itself has been overly announced on the mailing list and Cinder IRC meetings. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 2) We have a number of FC drivers today that had no problem meeting this deadline that was expressed in November 2014. 3) I've barely received updates from Netapp folks on progress here. I'm the only point of contact, so if you weren't talking to me, then it's unknown. I've expressed this to a number of your engineers and in my announcements about the CI deadline [8] I had to engage with Netapp to get updates, no one came to me with updates. The last update I heard from one of your engineers was, we bought the hardware, but it's just sitting there. That is not acceptable with us being past the deadline, and shows a clear sign of this not being a priority. NetApp has been very forthcoming in our progress and have gotten all our other CI systems in place for 7-mode iSCSI/NFS, cDOT iSCSI/NFS and E-Series. I respectfully request that NetApp FC be removed from this list of drivers to be removed for Kilo and placed back in the releaes and we can negotiate an agreed upon time as to when the CI system for these drivers will be in place. There will be no negotiating on what is an acceptable timeline for Netapp. What we all agreed to as a *community* back at the summit and Cinder IRC meeting was it. [1] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers [2] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-01-21-16.00.log.html [3] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-04-16.04.log.html [4] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-18-16.00.log.html [5] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-25-16.00.log.html [6] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-04-16.00.log.html [7] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-18-16.00.log.html [8] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/054614.html -- Mike Perez __ 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 __ 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 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
I request the same consideration for Huawei 18000 iSCSI driver and 18000 FC driver. May I also add it to the meeting agenda? · I promise Huawei Volume CI will become stable and reporting stably before March 31. Our CI will be moved to a more better environment tomorrowapp:ds:tomorrow or the day after tomorrowapp:ds:the%20day%20after%20tomorrow. · And we also have find out why some times the job will failed. It is because that Jenkins allow the job builds concurrently on the same node by default and this will cause the job building fails. We have changed this to not to build job concurrently on the same node. So I request the same exemption or FFE for Huawei 18000 iSCSI driver and Huawei 18000 FC driver. Thanks and best regards, Liu · 新国刘 华为技术有限公司 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. [Company_logo] Phone: Fax: Mobile: Email: 地址：深圳市龙岗区坂田华为基地 邮编：518129 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Bantian, Longgang District,Shenzhen 518129, P.R.China http://www.huawei.com 本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁 止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中 的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！ This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! 发件人: Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2015年3月23日 21:28 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 主题: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) Timothy You are very welcome to add it to the meeting agenda if you feel it should be discussed - the agenda is open and managed on the wiki. On 23 March 2015 at 15:15, ClaytonLuce, Timothy timothy.claytonl...@netapp.commailto:timothy.claytonl...@netapp.com wrote: Mike, Did not see a response to this request. Please respond, we can discuss in the Cinder Core meeting this week. -Original Message- From: ClaytonLuce, Timothy [mailto:timothy.claytonl...@netapp.commailto:timothy.claytonl...@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 5:27 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) Mike, I request the same consideration being given to the Oracle driver team: The tag for Kilo in Cinder has already happened, so it's too late to revert. We may be able to revisit this in Kilo RC, but I want to see your CI reporting reliably now to then to Cinder reviews. We are going to try by hook or crook to scrounge/borrow equipment to put a quick and dirty CI together and get it reliably reporting. Tim From: Mike Perez thin...@gmail.commailto:thin...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) On 12:33 Fri 20 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: I'd like to point out that for NetApp FC drivers NetApp has been in discussions and updating progress on these drivers since their submission. I will point out a discussion in the Nov Core meeting where I brought up the challenge around FC environments and the response I received: snip NetApp has in good faith been working toward implementing a CI for FC, I won't go into the challenges of spending $$ for lab equipment to build out a scalable quality CI system but suffice it to say the lab equipment is on order and scheduled for arrival the first part of April, at which point we can put in place the CI for FC. 1) We've been talking about CI's since Feburary 2014. That's really too bad this took so long. The deadline itself has been overly announced on the mailing list and Cinder IRC meetings. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 2) We have a number of FC drivers today that had no problem meeting this deadline that was expressed in November 2014. 3) I've barely received updates from Netapp folks on progress here. I'm the only point of contact, so if you weren't talking to me, then it's unknown. I've expressed this to a number of your engineers and in my announcements about the CI deadline [8] I had to engage with Netapp to get updates, no one came to me with updates. The last update I heard from one of your engineers was, we bought the hardware, but it's just sitting there. That is not acceptable with us being past the deadline, and shows a clear sign of this not being a priority. NetApp has been very forthcoming in our progress and have
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
On 13:15 Mon 23 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: Mike, Did not see a response to this request. Please respond, we can discuss in the Cinder Core meeting this week. Which request? I already responded to your message: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059518.html I responded to Huawei here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059561.html I've already responded to folks about extension: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059508.html You either are reporting and show a history of being STABLE from now to RC or your driver will not be readded. No discussion necessary. I will be removing the agenda items for discussion on extensions. Three agenda items being added to purely discuss the failures of companies actually making OpenStack a priority for over a year is very inconsiderate of the communities time. -- Mike Perez __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
I disagree with your assertion that NetApp has ignored this for a year and we are being inconsiderate of the community. The specific drivers (FC) we are discussing were added in the Kilo-1 period, so since Dec. and are net new drivers. All other NetApp drivers have had corresponding CI in place and operational. -Original Message- From: Mike Perez [mailto:thin...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 1:03 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) On 13:15 Mon 23 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: Mike, Did not see a response to this request. Please respond, we can discuss in the Cinder Core meeting this week. Which request? I already responded to your message: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059518.html I responded to Huawei here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059561.html I've already responded to folks about extension: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059508.html You either are reporting and show a history of being STABLE from now to RC or your driver will not be readded. No discussion necessary. I will be removing the agenda items for discussion on extensions. Three agenda items being added to purely discuss the failures of companies actually making OpenStack a priority for over a year is very inconsiderate of the communities time. -- Mike Perez __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
On 17:23 Mon 23 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: I disagree with your assertion that NetApp has ignored this for a year and we are being inconsiderate of the community. The specific drivers (FC) we are discussing were added in the Kilo-1 period, so since Dec. and are net new drivers. All other NetApp drivers have had corresponding CI in place and operational. You're failing to understand the point, which is why you're in this mess to begin with. Try listening. We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI deadlines in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that you're required to have a CI by the end of Kilo [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. This should've been known by your engineers regardless of when you submitted your driver. NetApp posted a driver in Kilo, with no CI done, and no clear prioritization to get it done in time. I recommend you spend less time whining, own up, and take care of things so we can revisit things in RC. [1] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers#Deadlines [2] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-01-21-16.00.log.html [3] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-04-16.04.log.html [4] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-18-16.00.log.html [5] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-25-16.00.log.html [6] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-04-16.00.log.html [7] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-18-16.00.log.html [8] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/054614.html -- Mike Perez __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
Hi Mike, I think what we are talking is huawei-volume-ci, not huawei-ci. It is huawei-volume-ci that is on behalf of huawei 18000 iSCSI and huawei 18000 FC driver. Regarding to only report failures when a patch really does break your integration, I think huawei-volume-ci probaly should be marked as not stable, but not not reported. And have a look at all the other CI's report, I think some of them are really not stable too. I do not understand why huawei-volume-ci is marked as not reported. The server of review.openstack.org is located at the United States (U.S.) and there is really a network problem between our CI and the review server. Till now we are really working hard for this and our CI will be moved to a more stable network soon. Mike, will you please have a consider about this? Thanks very much! Thanks and best regards, Liu -邮件原件- 发件人: Mike Perez [mailto:thin...@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2015年3月21日 6:37 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 抄送: Fanyaohong 主题: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) On 21:53 Fri 20 Mar , Rochelle Grober wrote: Ditto for Huawei. While we are not *reliably* reporting, we are reporting and the necessary steps have already been taken (and more importantly, approved) to get this reliably working ASAP. We respectfully request the same consideration for our cinder drivers. The most important piece of a CI meeting the requirements is that the test pass with your storage solution configured in Cinder, and to only report failures when a patch really does break your integration. Otherwise, there is no point. So far, the times Huawei-ci has reported have been false failures [1]. [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:+huawei-ci+project:openstack/cinder,n,z -- Mike Perez __ 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 __ 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
[openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
I'd like to point out that for NetApp FC drivers NetApp has been in discussions and updating progress on these drivers since their submission. I will point out a discussion in the Nov Core meeting where I brought up the challenge around FC environments and the response I received: 16:10:44 timcl K2 for existing drivers only? What about the new drivers coming in? K2 is going to be a challenge especially with Fibre Channel 16:10:46 DuncanT_ thingee, deprecation or removal... I'll probably put the patches up for removal then convert them to deprecation 16:10:48 jungleboyj DuncanT_: So the expectation is that maintainers are reliably reportng CI results by K-2 ? 16:11:04 DuncanT_ jungleboyj, For exisiting drivers, yes 16:11:10 jungleboyj Ok. 16:11:38 DuncanT_ timcl, New drivers maybe target the end of the release? With a hard cutoff of L-2 16:11:44 thingee Since I know not everyone attends this meeting unfortunately, I think DuncanT_ should also post this to the list. 16:12:09 DuncanT_ thingee, Will do. I'll email maintainers directly where possible too 16:12:29 thingee anyone opposed to this, besides there being more work for you? :) 16:12:30 timcl DuncanT_: OK we'll digest that and see where we are in the FC side 16:12:53 DuncanT_ timcl, Cool. Reach out to me if there are major issues, we can work on them. 16:13:14 DuncanT_ Ok, I think that's me done for this topic. Thanks all 16:13:17 timcl DuncanT_: thx NetApp has in good faith been working toward implementing a CI for FC, I won't go into the challenges of spending $$ for lab equipment to build out a scalable quality CI system but suffice it to say the lab equipment is on order and scheduled for arrival the first part of April, at which point we can put in place the CI for FC. NetApp has been very forthcoming in our progress and have gotten all our other CI systems in place for 7-mode iSCSI/NFS, cDOT iSCSI/NFS and E-Series. I respectfully request that NetApp FC be removed from this list of drivers to be removed for Kilo and placed back in the releaes and we can negotiate an agreed upon time as to when the CI system for these drivers will be in place. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
On 12:33 Fri 20 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: I'd like to point out that for NetApp FC drivers NetApp has been in discussions and updating progress on these drivers since their submission. I will point out a discussion in the Nov Core meeting where I brought up the challenge around FC environments and the response I received: snip NetApp has in good faith been working toward implementing a CI for FC, I won't go into the challenges of spending $$ for lab equipment to build out a scalable quality CI system but suffice it to say the lab equipment is on order and scheduled for arrival the first part of April, at which point we can put in place the CI for FC. 1) We've been talking about CI's since Feburary 2014. That's really too bad this took so long. The deadline itself has been overly announced on the mailing list and Cinder IRC meetings. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 2) We have a number of FC drivers today that had no problem meeting this deadline that was expressed in November 2014. 3) I've barely received updates from Netapp folks on progress here. I'm the only point of contact, so if you weren't talking to me, then it's unknown. I've expressed this to a number of your engineers and in my announcements about the CI deadline [8] I had to engage with Netapp to get updates, no one came to me with updates. The last update I heard from one of your engineers was, we bought the hardware, but it's just sitting there. That is not acceptable with us being past the deadline, and shows a clear sign of this not being a priority. NetApp has been very forthcoming in our progress and have gotten all our other CI systems in place for 7-mode iSCSI/NFS, cDOT iSCSI/NFS and E-Series. I respectfully request that NetApp FC be removed from this list of drivers to be removed for Kilo and placed back in the releaes and we can negotiate an agreed upon time as to when the CI system for these drivers will be in place. There will be no negotiating on what is an acceptable timeline for Netapp. What we all agreed to as a *community* back at the summit and Cinder IRC meeting was it. [1] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers [2] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-01-21-16.00.log.html [3] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-04-16.04.log.html [4] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-18-16.00.log.html [5] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-25-16.00.log.html [6] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-04-16.00.log.html [7] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-18-16.00.log.html [8] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/054614.html -- Mike Perez __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
Ditto for Huawei. While we are not *reliably* reporting, we are reporting and the necessary steps have already been taken (and more importantly, approved) to get this reliably working ASAP. We respectfully request the same consideration for our cinder drivers. --Rocky (as proxy for Liu Xinquo) -Original Message- From: ClaytonLuce, Timothy [mailto:timothy.claytonl...@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 14:27 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) Mike, I request the same consideration being given to the Oracle driver team: The tag for Kilo in Cinder has already happened, so it's too late to revert. We may be able to revisit this in Kilo RC, but I want to see your CI reporting reliably now to then to Cinder reviews. We are going to try by hook or crook to scrounge/borrow equipment to put a quick and dirty CI together and get it reliably reporting. Tim From: Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) On 12:33 Fri 20 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: I'd like to point out that for NetApp FC drivers NetApp has been in discussions and updating progress on these drivers since their submission. I will point out a discussion in the Nov Core meeting where I brought up the challenge around FC environments and the response I received: snip NetApp has in good faith been working toward implementing a CI for FC, I won't go into the challenges of spending $$ for lab equipment to build out a scalable quality CI system but suffice it to say the lab equipment is on order and scheduled for arrival the first part of April, at which point we can put in place the CI for FC. 1) We've been talking about CI's since Feburary 2014. That's really too bad this took so long. The deadline itself has been overly announced on the mailing list and Cinder IRC meetings. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 2) We have a number of FC drivers today that had no problem meeting this deadline that was expressed in November 2014. 3) I've barely received updates from Netapp folks on progress here. I'm the only point of contact, so if you weren't talking to me, then it's unknown. I've expressed this to a number of your engineers and in my announcements about the CI deadline [8] I had to engage with Netapp to get updates, no one came to me with updates. The last update I heard from one of your engineers was, we bought the hardware, but it's just sitting there. That is not acceptable with us being past the deadline, and shows a clear sign of this not being a priority. NetApp has been very forthcoming in our progress and have gotten all our other CI systems in place for 7-mode iSCSI/NFS, cDOT iSCSI/NFS and E-Series. I respectfully request that NetApp FC be removed from this list of drivers to be removed for Kilo and placed back in the releaes and we can negotiate an agreed upon time as to when the CI system for these drivers will be in place. There will be no negotiating on what is an acceptable timeline for Netapp. What we all agreed to as a *community* back at the summit and Cinder IRC meeting was it. [1] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers [2] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-01-21-16.00.log.html [3] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-04-16.04.log.html [4] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-18-16.00.log.html [5] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-25-16.00.log.html [6] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-04-16.00.log.html [7] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-18-16.00.log.html [8] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/054614.html -- Mike Perez __ 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 __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
Mike, I request the same consideration being given to the Oracle driver team: The tag for Kilo in Cinder has already happened, so it's too late to revert. We may be able to revisit this in Kilo RC, but I want to see your CI reporting reliably now to then to Cinder reviews. We are going to try by hook or crook to scrounge/borrow equipment to put a quick and dirty CI together and get it reliably reporting. Tim From: Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI) On 12:33 Fri 20 Mar , ClaytonLuce, Timothy wrote: I'd like to point out that for NetApp FC drivers NetApp has been in discussions and updating progress on these drivers since their submission. I will point out a discussion in the Nov Core meeting where I brought up the challenge around FC environments and the response I received: snip NetApp has in good faith been working toward implementing a CI for FC, I won't go into the challenges of spending $$ for lab equipment to build out a scalable quality CI system but suffice it to say the lab equipment is on order and scheduled for arrival the first part of April, at which point we can put in place the CI for FC. 1) We've been talking about CI's since Feburary 2014. That's really too bad this took so long. The deadline itself has been overly announced on the mailing list and Cinder IRC meetings. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 2) We have a number of FC drivers today that had no problem meeting this deadline that was expressed in November 2014. 3) I've barely received updates from Netapp folks on progress here. I'm the only point of contact, so if you weren't talking to me, then it's unknown. I've expressed this to a number of your engineers and in my announcements about the CI deadline [8] I had to engage with Netapp to get updates, no one came to me with updates. The last update I heard from one of your engineers was, we bought the hardware, but it's just sitting there. That is not acceptable with us being past the deadline, and shows a clear sign of this not being a priority. NetApp has been very forthcoming in our progress and have gotten all our other CI systems in place for 7-mode iSCSI/NFS, cDOT iSCSI/NFS and E-Series. I respectfully request that NetApp FC be removed from this list of drivers to be removed for Kilo and placed back in the releaes and we can negotiate an agreed upon time as to when the CI system for these drivers will be in place. There will be no negotiating on what is an acceptable timeline for Netapp. What we all agreed to as a *community* back at the summit and Cinder IRC meeting was it. [1] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers [2] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-01-21-16.00.log.html [3] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-04-16.04.log.html [4] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-18-16.00.log.html [5] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-25-16.00.log.html [6] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-04-16.00.log.html [7] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-03-18-16.00.log.html [8] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/054614.html -- Mike Perez __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI)
On 21:53 Fri 20 Mar , Rochelle Grober wrote: Ditto for Huawei. While we are not *reliably* reporting, we are reporting and the necessary steps have already been taken (and more importantly, approved) to get this reliably working ASAP. We respectfully request the same consideration for our cinder drivers. The most important piece of a CI meeting the requirements is that the test pass with your storage solution configured in Cinder, and to only report failures when a patch really does break your integration. Otherwise, there is no point. So far, the times Huawei-ci has reported have been false failures [1]. [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:+huawei-ci+project:openstack/cinder,n,z -- Mike Perez __ 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
