On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 09:51:46 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
Jenkins provides rich tracking of tests, code coverage and code
quality (eg: cppcheck) in addition to checking if it builds.
Zuul is designed to determine if it builds and if tests fail -
providing a binary pass/fail response.
This is not true. Please read Zuul's documentation at [1] (or the
modernization proposal I'll be sending later today) for a short overview.
I'll also note that Jenkins provides scheduling and can bring nodes up
and down as needed (when equipped with access to a cloud/cluster).
For this reason Openstack is still relying on Jenkins in part as Zuul
can't do this.
This is not true.
- OpenStack uses Nodepool for node management (VM teardown & bringing up
new nodes, and image building), not Jenkins.
- The reason why OpenStack uses Jenkins *with* Zuul rather than just Zuul +
Turbo-Hipster is purely due to inertia and less work required due to their
history.
- OpenStack's use of Jenkins is limited to acting as a conduit for
launching jobs.
- Zuul knows how many resources are online at any time, so Nodepool can be
(and is) used with it just fine.
Jenkins also permits us to track jobs unrelated to our code reviews,
So does Zuul; the OpenStack project is building release tarballs and have
nightly QA processes on stable branches, all with Zuul.
Please recall that no change of bug tracker or CI system is being
planned at this time - such a change would be for future discussion.
Fair enough, but then the argument of a "fully integrated solution" should
not be advertised as Phabricator's advantage, IMHO.
Cheers,
Jan
[1] http://ci.openstack.org/zuul/
--
Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
