On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 11:59 PM, Steve Martinelli wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:dava...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     Matt, Emilien,
>>     there's one more option, run jobs daily and add the output to the
>>     openstack health dashboard.
>>     example -
>> http://status.openstack.org/openstack-health/#/g/build_name/periodic-ironic-py35-with-oslo-master
>> <http://status.openstack.org/openstack-health/#/g/build_name/periodic-ironic-py35-with-oslo-master>
>> But that only runs against what is merged on master right? I think
>> Emilien wants to catch changes that break before they are merged.
>> Emilien, I think it's also worth noting which projects you intend to
>> make these changes to? Just "core" projects + projects that tripleO uses
>> (heat + ironic) + projects that have burned you in the past (OSC)? Or do
>> you plan on covering all projects?
>> Finding a balance between not enough testing, and overusing infra
>> resources is tricky, we should only aim for high value targets like the
>> ones listed above. I can't imagine this being run on all check jobs
>> everywhere.
> It's not just overuse of infra resources. Anything that's more complicated
> than unit tests has > 0% chance of failure. So every new complex full stack
> test is going to -1 some set of good patches.
> The best thing to do when there is a break is to figure out what the root
> cause was, and push testing back as low in the stack as possible. Was there
> a good unit test that could have prevented it? That's super cheap, and helps
> a ton going forward. Or realize that projects are using undefined behavior
> of other tools, and we need to define that behavior.
> The deployment teams are releasing their final version of things weeks after
> the newton release hits. By nature there is some following time.
> I kind of wonder if that hints to a better model here instead of the
> deployments running services from master. Instead running periodics and
> moving forward reference hashes every day if tests pass, and not if they
> fail. That would let deployment tools automatically move forward, quite
> close to master, but not get tightly coupled into every change.
> Because I do get concerned for deciding that every developer needs to
> understand tripleo, and ansible, and fuel and the configuration decisions
> they made, the bugs they have, the way their services are deployed, to be
> able to land any patches. Because I think that will further reduce the pool
> of developers that can contribute.

I explicitly mentioned the opposite in the proposal, let me copy/paste it again:

"We don't expect developers to investigate why new CI jobs would fail
(ex: a Nova developer to look at TripleO CI job), it would be unfair.
Just some horizontal communication would be enough, IRC or email, to
inform that a patch might break a CI job outside devstack."

If a CI job is breaking because of a patch, deployment tools folks
would look at the CI job and tell to the project why it fails, who
would decide if whether or not it's a blocker (ie: indeed, the patch
is breaking backward compatibility, or no, the patch is good,
installer has to be updated, etc).

I hope it's clear that we don't expect project to spend time on this
thing and of course we don't want to reduce the pool of devs here.

Emilien Macchi

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to