On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Sean McGinnis <sean.mcgin...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:30:49PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2017-07-26 12:56:55 +0200 (+0200), Niels de Vos wrote: > > [...] > > > My current guess is that adding a 3rd party CI [3] for Gluster is > > > the only missing piece? > > [...] > > > > I thought GlusterFS was free/libre software. If so, won't the Cinder > > team allow upstream testing in OpenStack's CI system for free > > backends/drivers? Maintaining a third-party CI system for that seems > > like overkill, but I'm unfamiliar with Cinder's particular driver > > testing policies. > > -- > > Jeremy Stanley > > You are correct Jeremy. It wasn't a CI issue that caused the removal. > IIRC, Red Hat decided to focus on Ceph as the platform for Cinder > storage. > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > Just confirming Sean's recollection, Eric Harney from Redhat was pretty much the sole maintainer of the Gluster code in Cinder and the decision was made that he would stop maintaining/supporting the Gluster driver in Cinder (and I believe he actually put out some calls asking for any volunteers that might want to pick it up). I'll certainly let Eric speak to any details if he wishes so I don't misrepresent. The bottom line is there was only one person maintaining it, CI is relatively easy with Gluster, there was even (IIRC) infra already in place to deploy/test in the upstream gate.
__________________________________________________________________________ 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