On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Michal Skrivanek <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 21 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Vojtech Szocs <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Eyal Edri" <[email protected]> >>> To: "Vojtech Szocs" <[email protected]> >>> Cc: "Barak Korren" <[email protected]>, "devel" <[email protected]>, "board" >>> <[email protected]>, "Michal Skrivanek" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:23:44 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [Call for Vote] moVirt as a Full oVirt Project >>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Vojtech Szocs <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Barak Korren" <[email protected]> >>>>> To: "Brian Proffitt" <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: "Michal Skrivanek" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "devel" < >>>> [email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:01:08 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [Call for Vote] moVirt as a Full oVirt Project >>>>> >>>>> -1 > > I wonder if 8x +1 beats one -1 :)
9X :-) +1 for including the project as is. If someone wants to run the project test or build it, the right way to vote is by sending patches and making it happen. I think we should get out of our gerrit silo and move all ovirt projects to github. This will give ovirt much better visibility. Here are some projects developed on github: https://github.com/systemd/systemd https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/ https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes Nir > >>>>> Not because of anything with the project itself - I think it is >>>>> genuinely awesome, but because I expect a project that emerges out of >>>>> the incubation process to "look" like an oVirt project, by which I >>>>> mean: >>>>> 1. Have the code in the oVirt Gerrit > > I wonder why that would be required. We experimented with other projects > being off gerrit as well(e.g. cockpit-ovirt) and bug tracking out of redhat > bugzilla and for certain projcts it makes sense. With more integration with > other upstream projects I see us moving to github even more... > >>>>> 2. Have tests and builds running on oVirt's CI system. > > Can we run mobile testing on current infra? > >>>>> 3. Have artefacts served from oVirt's mirrors. > > What artifacts? The final APK? Why? It's not a yum repo. > >>>>> 4. Have bugs tracked in oVirt's bugzilla. > > No > That should never be imposed on any new project. If someone loves slow > outdated tools, so be it, but for new projects I again do not see us > promoting it in future > >>>> >>>> For 1 and 4, I feel that the benefit of allowing some projects to be hosted >>>> on GitHub (attract & involve community through GitHub's public service) >>>> does >>>> out-weigh the rule of strict consistency (have everything in oVirt Gerrit). >>>> >>>> >>> Any project in oVirt gerrit can be mirrored to GitHub, and most of them are >>> ( see github.com/oVirt ) > > We do mirror it IIRC (or it may have been cockpit-ovirt), it's just the other > way around - the master copy is at github > >>> >>> >>>> Although, not sure how hard would it be to modify oVirt CI system to allow >>>> building GitHub hosted projects. >>>> >>> >>> We are supporting it, Lago is an example of such project. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The guidelines should be clear about whether a project must be hosted via >>>> oVirt Gerrit, whether it must have its bugs tracked via oVirt Bugzilla, >>>> etc. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think its a must, but its highly recommended IMO, and will help the >>> project grow. >>> Imagine this scenario: >>> >>> the project grows and uses its own CI/testing frameworks and reaches a >>> point it wants to join the oVirt eco-system, >>> At that point it will be much harder to integrate it if at all, assuming >>> the tools he's been using were not aligned with >>> the tooling other projects are using. >>> >>> Also - in terms of release process, its will be very hard to include it in >>> an official oVirt release if he wishes to do so, >>> as all oVirt projects are built in the current infra and shipped as a >>> single repository. > > You're missing the point it's not a yum repo. > >> >> Eyal, I agree with your points. >> >> I just wanted to point out the possibility of hosting project's >> sources on GitHub (point 1 from Barak's list). And as you wrote, >> Lago is a good example of such project. >> >> Using standard oVirt CI infra & tools (points 2 & 3 from Barak's >> list) should be mandatory for all oVirt projects, to keep things >> manageable from build/release perspective. Full agreement here. >> >> As for bug tracking (point 4 from Barak's list), I see Lago using >> GitHub's issue tracking interface, so this should be OK too.. >> >> In general, I'd say that moVirt maintainers should clearly voice >> their vision on converging (or not) towards points 1,2,3,4 that >> Barak has mentioned in his email. > > I would say no. And that is fine > >> >> For me, having source code & issues on GitHub, but using standard >> oVirt CI infra & tools, is still acceptable for an oVirt project, >> but it's just my own opinion. > > I agree we can mix and match, though in this case I'm not sure how realistic > is to run CI for an APK > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 21 November 2016 at 19:07, Brian Proffitt <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> All: >>>>>> >>>>>> The moVirt Project was initially accepted as an oVirt incubator >>>> project in >>>>>> February 2015. It has been a successful subproject for quite some time >>>> and >>>>>> it is well due for being accepted as a full oVirt project. I believe >>>> it is >>>>>> appropriate to post a Call for Vote on the Devel and Board lists. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ovirt.org/develop/projects/project-movirt/ >>>>>> >>>>>> A “healthy” project, as determined by the oVirt Board, can be found at >>>>>> http://www.ovirt.org/develop/projects/adding-a-new-project/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Voting will be open until 1200 UTC Nov. 30, 2016. A net total of +7 >>>> votes >>>>>> should be received to formalize this project as an full oVirt project. >>>>>> Please use the following vote process: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> Yes, agree, or the action should be performed. On some issues, this >>>> vote >>>>>> must only be given after the voter has tested the action on their own >>>>>> system(s). >>>>>> >>>>>> ±0 >>>>>> Abstain, no opinion, or I am happy to let the other group members >>>> decide >>>>>> this issue. An abstention may have detrimental affects if too many >>>> people >>>>>> abstain. >>>>>> >>>>>> -1 >>>>>> No, I veto this action. All vetos must include an explanation of why >>>> the >>>>>> veto is appropriate. A veto with no explanation is void. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian Proffitt >>>>>> Principal Community Analyst >>>>>> Open Source and Standards >>>>>> @TheTechScribe >>>>>> 574.383.9BKP >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Barak Korren >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> RHEV-CI Team >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Devel mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Eyal Edri >>> Associate Manager >>> RHV DevOps >>> EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D >>> Red Hat Israel >>> >>> phone: +972-9-7692018 >>> irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ) >>> > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
