On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Dan Smith <d...@danplanet.com> wrote:

> > I would also like to see CI (either third party or in the gate) for
> > the nova driver before merging it. There's a chicken and egg problem
> > here if its in the gate, but I'd like to see it at least proposed as a
> > review.
> Yeah, I think that the existing nova-baremetal driver is kinda frozen in
> a pre-deprecation state right now, which gives it a special pass on the
> CI requirement. To me, I think it makes sense to avoid ripping it out
> since it's already on ice.

Except it's not actually frozen - at least one blueprint adding new
functionality landed during Icehouse, which we still need to finish porting.

However, for the Ironic driver, I would definitely rather see real CI up
> _and_ working before we merge it. I think that probably means it will be
> a post-icehouse thing at this point, unless that effort is farther along
> than I think.
> At the Nova meetup this week, we had a serious discussion about ripping
> out major drivers that might not make the deadline. I don't think it
> makes sense to rip those out and merge another without meeting the
> requirement.

>From Nova's perspective, I agree. Ironic is not as far along with CI as I
had hoped we would be by this point. Now, it's possible that in the next
month or so, we'll make a lot of headway there -- we're certainly going to

AIUI, even if Ironic meets all the other criteria, if we don't have the
Nova driver landed and fully CI'd in time, we won't graduate. Is that

Since it's hard to tell tone from text, I'm not upset about this -- I knew
from the start that we would need real CI for Ironic, it makes sense from a
perspective of "protect the core", and I've been following the discussions
around third-party testing. I just want to be clear about expectations so
that we can allocate development resources appropriately. We might also
want to consider what it means for baremetal if Ironic doesn't graduate...

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to