On 02/28/2015 09:36 PM, Ramakrishnan G wrote:
>> You may not realize you do a disservice to those reading this post and
>> those reviewing future patches if you set unreasonable expectations.
> 
>> Telling others that they can expect a patch merged in the same day is
>> not reasonable, even if that has been your experience. While we do our
>> best to keep current, we all are very busy and requests for repos are
>> increasing. If folks want a repo they can submit a patch to create one,
>> here is a good guide:
>> http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/creators.html and it will be
>> reviewed along with all other patches to project-config.
> 
> Anita,
> 
> Thanks for correcting me.  Yeah, I just quoted *my experience with
> openstack-infra *blindly.  Sorry for that.
> 
> Rather I also wanted to point out to our folks, things in infra are so
> automated that putting an openstack-related module into stackforge has been
> become fully automatic and easy *(easy for the requestor, of course keeping
> in mind that the request has to be correct and get's reviewed and approved
> by  infra guys)*.  Kudos to you guys :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Ramesh
You are welcome Ramesh.

I am glad you are having a good experience dealing with the infra team.

Going forward please be informed that I am a woman, I am not a guy. The
infra team has some members which are female.

Thank you,
Anita.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/28/2015 01:28 AM, Ramakrishnan G wrote:
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> This is about adding vendor drivers in Ironic.
>>>
>>> In Kilo, we have many vendor drivers getting added in Ironic which is a
>>> very good thing.  But something I noticed is that, most of these reviews
>>> have lots of hardware-specific code in them.  This is something most of
>> the
>>> other Ironic folks cannot understand unless they go and read the hardware
>>> manuals of the vendor hardware about what is being done.  Otherwise we
>> just
>>> need to blindly mark the file as reviewed.
>>>
>>> Now let me pitch in with our story about this.  We added a vendor driver
>>> for HP Proliant hardware (the *ilo drivers in Ironic).  Initially we
>>> proposed this same thing in Ironic that we will add all the hardware
>>> specific code in Ironic itself under the directory drivers/modules/ilo.
>>> But few of the Ironic folks didn't agree on this (Devananda especially
>> who
>>> is from my company :)). So we created a new module proliantutils, hosted
>> in
>>> our own github and recently moved it to stackforge.  We gave a limited
>> set
>>> of APIs for Ironic to use - like get_host_power_status(),
>> set_host_power(),
>>> get_one_time_boot(), set_one_time_boot(), etc. (Entire list is here
>>>
>> https://github.com/stackforge/proliantutils/blob/master/proliantutils/ilo/operations.py
>>> ).
>>>
>>> We have only seen benefits in doing it.  Let me bring in some examples:
>>>
>>> 1) We tried to add support for some lower version of servers.  We could
>> do
>>> this without making any changes in Ironic (Review in proliantutils
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153945/)
>>> 2) We are adding support for newer models of servers (earlier we use to
>>> talk to servers in protocol called RIBCL, newer servers we will use a
>>> protocol called RIS) - We could do this with just 14 lines of actual code
>>> change in Ironic (this was needed mainly because we didn't think we will
>>> have to use a new protocol itself when we started) -
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154403/
>>>
>>> Now talking about the advantages of putting hardware-specific code in
>>> Ironic:
>>>
>>> *1) It's reviewed by Openstack community and tested:*
>>> No. I doubt if I throw in 600 lines of new iLO specific code that is
>> here (
>>>
>> https://github.com/stackforge/proliantutils/blob/master/proliantutils/ilo/ris.py
>> )
>>> for Ironic folks, they will hardly take a look at it.  And regarding
>>> testing, it's not tested in the gate unless we have a 3rd party CI for
>> it.
>>>  [We (iLO drivers) also don't have 3rd party CI right now, but we are
>>> working on it.]
>>>
>>> *2) Everything gets packaged into distributions automatically:*
>>> Now the hardware-specific code that we add in Ironic under
>>> drivers/modules/<vendor>/ will get packaged into distributions, but this
>>> code in turn will have dependencies  which needs to be installed manually
>>> by the operator (I assume vendor specific dependencies are not considered
>>> by Linux distributions while packaging Openstack Ironic). Anyone
>> installing
>>> Ironic and wanting to manage my company's servers will again need to
>>> install these dependencies manually.  Why not install the wrapper if
>> there
>>> is one too.
>>>
>>> I assume we only get these advantages by moving all of hardware-specific
>>> code to a wrapper module in stackforge and just exposing some APIs for
>>> Ironic to use:
>>> * Ironic code would be much cleaner and easier to maintain
>>> * Any changes related to your hardware - support for newer hardware, bug
>>> fixes in particular models of hardware, would be very easy. You don't
>> need
>>> to change Ironic code for that. You could just fix the bug in your
>> module,
>>> release a new version and ask your users to install a newer version of
>> the
>>> module.
>>> * python-fooclient could be used outside Ironic to easily manage foo
>>> servers.
>>> * Openstack CI for free if you are in stackforge - unit tests, flake
>> tests,
>>> doc generation, merge, pypi release everything handled automatically.
>>>
>>> I don't see any disadvantages.
>>>
>>> Now regarding the time taken to do this, if you have all the code ready
>> now
>>> in Ironic (which assume you will already have), perhaps it will take a
>> day
>>> to do this - half a day for putting into a separate module in
>> python/github
>>> and half a day for stackforge. The request to add stackforge should get
>>> approved in the same day (if everything is all-right).
>> You may not realize you do a disservice to those reading this post and
>> those reviewing future patches if you set unreasonable expectations.
>>
>> Telling others that they can expect a patch merged in the same day is
>> not reasonable, even if that has been your experience. While we do our
>> best to keep current, we all are very busy and requests for repos are
>> increasing. If folks want a repo they can submit a patch to create one,
>> here is a good guide:
>> http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/creators.html and it will be
>> reviewed along with all other patches to project-config.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Anita.
>>>
>>> Let me know all of your thoughts on this.  If we agree, I feel we should
>>> have some documentation on it in our Ironic docs directory.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading :)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ramesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 


__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to