On 9/11/14, 4:30 PM, "Sean Dague" <s...@dague.net> wrote:
>On 09/11/2014 09:09 AM, Gary Kotton wrote: >> >> >> On 9/11/14, 2:55 PM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: >> >>> Sean Dague wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> Why don't we start with "let's clean up the virt interface and make it >>>> more sane", as I don't think there is any disagreement there. If it's >>>> going to take a cycle, it's going to take a cycle anyway (it will >>>> probably take 2 cycles, realistically, we always underestimate these >>>> things, remember when no-db-compute was going to be 1 cycle?). I don't >>>> see the need to actually decide here and now that the split is clearly >>>> at least 7 - 12 months away. A lot happens in the intervening time. >>> >>> Yes, that sounds like the logical next step. We can't split drivers >>> without first doing that anyway. I still think "people need smaller >>> areas of work", as Vish eloquently put it. I still hope that >>>refactoring >>> our test architecture will let us reach the same level of quality with >>> only a fraction of the tests being run at the gate, which should >>>address >>> most of the harm you see in adding additional repositories. But I agree >>> there is little point in discussing splitting virt drivers (or anything >>> else, really) until the internal interface below that potential split >>>is >>> fully cleaned up and it becomes an option. >> >> How about we start to try and patch gerrit to provide +2 permissions for >> people >> Who can be assigned Œdriver core¹ status. This is something that is >> relevant to Nova and Neutron and I guess Cinder too. > >If you think that's the right solution, I'd say go and investigate it >with folks that understand enough gerrit internals to be able to figure >out how hard it would be. Start a conversation in #openstack-infra to >explore it. > >My expectation is that there is more complexity there than you give it >credit for. That being said one of the biggest limitations we've had on >gerrit changes is we've effectively only got one community member, Kai, >who does any of that. If other people, or teams, were willing to dig in >and own things like this, that might be really helpful. What about what Radoslav suggested? Having a background task running - that can set a flag indicating that the code has been approved by the driver ‘maintainers’. This can be something that driver CI should run - that is, driver code can only be approved if it has X +1’s from the driver maintainers and a +1 from the driver CI. > > -Sean > >-- >Sean Dague >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://dague.net/&k=oIvRg1%2BdG >AgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=eH0pxTUZo8NPZyF6hgoMQu%2BfDtysg45MkPhCZFxPEq8%3D% >0A&m=krRe7RLL8WDd62ypHGZ6F1MqaSzJLkWn153Ch9UZktk%3D%0A&s=9b417c5fd29939b40 >eee619ca9ed30be48192d939b824941d42d6e6ab36b1883 > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev