On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Sean Dague <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/18/2014 08:15 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Sean Dague <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 03/18/2014 10:11 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 07:50:15AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > >> Hi Team, > > >> > > >> We have 2 choices > > >> > > >> 1) Upgrade to libvirt 0.9.8+ (See [1] for details) > > >> 2) Enable UCA and upgrade to libvirt 1.2.2+ (see [2] for details) > > >> > > >> For #1, we received a patched deb from @SergeHallyn/@JamesPage > > and ran > > >> tests on it in review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/79816/ > > >> For #2, @SergeHallyn/@JamesPage have updated UCA > > >> ("precise-proposed/icehouse") repo and we ran tests on it in > review > > >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/74889/ > > >> > > >> For IceHouse, my recommendation is to request Ubuntu folks to > > push the > > >> patched 0.9.8+ version we validated to public repos, then we can > can > > >> install/run gate jobs with that version. This is probably the > > smallest > > >> risk of the 2 choices. > > > > > > If we've re-run the tests in that review enough times to be > confident > > > we've had a chance of exercising the race conditions, then using > the > > > patched 0.9.8 seems like a no-brainer. We know the current version > in > > > ubuntu repos is broken for us, so the sooner we address that the > > better. > > > > > > > > ++ > > > > > > > > > >> As soon as Juno begins, we can switch 1.2.2+ on UCA and request > > Ubuntu > > >> folks to push the verified version where we can use it. > > > > > > ++ > > > > > > > > > > This basically re-raises the question of /what/ we should be > > testing in > > > the gate, which was discussed on this list a few weeks ago, and > > I'm not > > > clear that there was a definite decision in that thread > > > > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-February/027734.html > > > > > > Testing the lowest vs highest is targetting two different scenarios > > > > > > - Testing the lowest version demonstrates that OpenStack has not > > > broken its own code by introducing use of a new feature. > > > > > > - Testing the highest version demonstrates that OpenStack has not > > > been broken by 3rd party code introducing a regression. > > > > > > I think it is in scope for openstack to be targetting both of these > > > scenarios. For anything in-between though, it is upto the > downstream > > > vendors to test their precise combination of versions. Currently > > though > > > our testing policy for non-python bits is "whatever version ubuntu > > ships", > > > which may be neither the lowest or highest versions, just some > > arbitrary > > > version they wish to support. So this discussion is currently more > > of a > > > 'what ubuntu version should we test on' kind of decision > > > > I think testing 2 versions of libvirt in the gate is adding a matrix > > dimension that we currently can't really support. We're just going to > > have to pick one per release and be fine with it (at least for > > icehouse). > > > > If people want other versions tested, please come in with 3rd party > ci > > on it. > > > > We can revisit the big test matrix at summit about the combinations > > we're going to actually validate, because with the various > limitations > > we've got (concurrency limits, quota limits, upstream package limits, > > kinds of tests we want to run) we're going to have to make a bunch of > > compromises. Testing something new is going to require throwing > existing > > stuff out of the test path. > > > > > > I think this is definitely worth revisiting at the summit, but I think > > we should move Juno to Libvirt 1.2.2+ as soon as possible instead of > > gating on a 2 year old release, and at the summit we can sort out what > > the full test matrix can be. > > > > As a side note tripleo uses libvirt from Saucy (1.1.1) so moving to > > latest libvirt would help support them. > > Honestly, given that we've been trying to get a working UCA for 6 > months, I'm really not thrilled by the idea of making UCA part of our > gate. Because it's clearly not at the same level of testing as the base > distro. I think this will be even more so with UCA post 14.04 release, > as that's designed as a transitional stage to get you to 14.04. > > As has been demonstrated, Canonical's testing systems are clearly not > finding the same bugs we are finding in their underlying packages. > > I think the libvirt 1.2+ plan should be moving Juno to 14.04 as soon as > we can get that stable. That will bring in a whole fresh OS, kernel, > etc. And we recenter our testing on that LTS going forward. >
Sounds like a good plan to me. > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > Samsung Research America > [email protected] / [email protected] > http://dague.net > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
