Thanks for the status update. Sounds good in general. One question: you propose to submit stuff manual for one month to test etc. while cbuild is continuing in the old form for now as our production approach?
Could we somehow submit all jobs that cbuild puts onto the current non-lava-managed boards to LAVA instead of doing manual testing or does the step to use LAVA for job execution too intrusive to keep it running in parallel? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Paul Sokolovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > This milestone is last in series of 3 to add LAVA integration for > CBuild. In anticipation of delays and waits for deployment, > mid-December we made an optimistic plan to target to request > deployment in the beginning of this milestone. We didn't finish as much > as we wanted, but there're 2 main points: 1) we made all changes in a > way to preserve original CBuild native builds; 2) the core > functionality is done and proved working well on a sandbox. > > So, we would like to follow original plan and set on deployment process > for the changes, in anticipation that we may need to do incremental > rollout (another point easy to forget is that TCWG has earlier > deadline, so there's no "good" time for deployment, and starting it > early is good way to avoid procrastination). > > So, we would like to propose following plan: > > 1. Infra stabilizes current changes (level of functionality: manual > scheduling of builds in LAVA). We already started this, as the changes > spread around several bzr repos, we using Launchpad's great Merge > Request functionality. It's Infra-only first stage review though, feel > free to ignore it. > > 2. We submit 2nd-stage MR for TCWG and LAVA teams to review. ETA is > beginning of the next week. > > 3. Once review is passed (hopefully within a week or shorter), we > schedule a date for merging and deployment, subject to constraint of > TCWG release schedule. > > 4. We appoint team which will do deployment, Infra engineers have > access to cbuild.validation.linaro.org, so we can gladly work on that, > making sure we can rollback to the currently running version easily. > > 5. We invite stakeholders to do manual builds in LAVA. > > 6. As remaining functionality is developed (UI tweaks, support for > advanced functionality requiring automated access to build logs), they > are deployed in similar manner. > > 7. Automated builds (dailies, MR CI builds, etc.) are configured to run > on LAVA in parallel to native CBuild. > > > This last point is what we can realistically and reasonably deliver by > the end of this milestone, which will enable us to review functionality > and stability of LAVA builds, work on resolving remaining > infrastructural issues (like stability of build image), assess LAVA > capacity, and overall prepare plans for migrating to LAVA as the main > build platform for CBuild. > > Please let me know how this plan looks. > > > Thanks, > Paul > > Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs > Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro > http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog -- Alexander Sack Director, Linaro Platform Engineering http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
