+1
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vinzenz Feenstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 22, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Tomas Jelinek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nir Soffer" <[email protected]> > To: "Michal Skrivanek" <[email protected]> > Cc: "devel" <[email protected]>, "board" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 10:00:05 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [Call for Vote] moVirt as a Full oVirt Project > > 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 :-) > > > adding my obviously biased +1, so not sure if it counts... > > > +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 > > > I would add also https://github.com/ManageIQ/ which we as oVirt devels are > contributing to regularly. > > > https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit > https://github.com/OpenShift > > > > > 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? > > > We are using travis for this. Our complete config file is: > language: android > script: "./gradlew build" > android: > components: > - platforms-tools > - tools > - build-tools-21.1.2 > - android-21 > > We don't have any additional tooling developed or anything like that. > If we will start thinking about doing some custom/complicated stuff, we > may consider moving to ovirt's CI. Currently, I don't see a reason. > > > 3. Have artefacts served from oVirt's mirrors. > > > What artifacts? The final APK? Why? It's not a yum repo. > > > We need to serve them using google play store so it will reach the users > easily. > We could serve also RPM packaged APKs > or even create our alternative "something like play store" but Im not sure > what benefits > it would bring us. > > > 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 > > > +1 > > Well, long story short, moVirt is a simple small tool developed by a very > small team > and occasionally contributed by community (mostly as outreachy interns or > intern candidates). > It needs a swift, stable, minimal and well known tooling around which does > exactly what we need. > The current combination of github for code and issue tracking + travis for > simple CI > served us fantastically. I'm quite against moving to other place just > because it may bring > some benefits in the 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
