Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Experimenting Cloud Service (GitHub + CircleCI) Recommended by TAC Infra WG

[Cedric OLLIVIER]

Hi,

My main concern about Releng is simply its overall architecture (I consider
Jenkins jobs builder as quite powerful even if we do spend time before
mastering it).
It forbids all projects to manage jobs in project branches (see Zuul,
travis-ci,etc...). Then a simple renaming leads to lots of staff to bypass
Releng rolling mode.
And all projects must publish changes in a centralized place where PTLs
don't have right to merge for good reasons.
Instead we should have implemented an additional layer between jjbs and
yaml files which could have been hosted in OPNFV project.

Functest team has proposed for a while configuration for building
containers in travis-ci.org (see Rapberry PI containers).
It's much more easier even if we are able to convert yaml files hosted in
Functest to Releng jjbs via xtesting ansible role.
https://git.opnfv.org/functest/tree/.travis.yml
https://git.opnfv.org/functest-kubernetes/tree/ansible/site.yml
https://git.opnfv.org/releng/tree/jjb/functest/functest-kubernetes.yaml

@Alec: please add me as reviewer of your changes in releng.

Cédric

Le ven. 7 juin 2019 à 22:21, Alec via Lists.Opnfv.Org  a écrit :

> I would be interested to participate (NFVbench project). I am actually
> willing to try anything that moves us away from releng repo and JJB.
>
>
>
> I would like to point out that the current CI/CD based on Jenkins is not
> providing sufficient permission for PTLs to customize as almost every
> aspect of CI/CD is based on the releng repo which requires lengthy
> turnaround time when the releng team is busy doing other work.
>
>
>
> One example is a gerrit review I submitted about 7 days ago and still
> waiting for a review from the releng team. I have to generate new VM image
> versions in my CI/CD and such a simple task has proved difficult to achieve
> or adjust with the current framework.
>
> Same goes with docker images generated in dockerhub and for which PTLs
> have no way to customize (e.g. remove stale images, edit the project
> dockerhub description content etc…) as it is owned by “opnfv”. I think
> these will get resolved with patience but I would have taken care of these
> roadblocks easily if I had more control on the CI/CD workflow for my
> project.
>
>
>
> Using Jenkins as the CI/CD base engine might provide good support for
> exiting opnfv projects but my own experience with it has not been good
> overall as it relies on knowing the arcane behavior of JJB (Jenkins job
> builder) which is not exactly very intuitive, especially we have little way
> of testing our changes without involving the releng team and doing trial
> commits into the releng repo. The releng team has been doing a great job
> trying to keep up with the reviews generally but I don’t think we can
> continue that path to have releng team gate every single aspect of a
> project CI/CD, especially with less and less resources allocated to that
> task.
>
> The only scalable way moving forward is to give more power to PTLs so they
> can customize their CI/CD as much as possible without having to depend on a
> third party team.
>
>
>
> I hope the new proposal will move us to that direction.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Alec
>
>
>
> *From: * on behalf of "HU, BIN"  >
> *Date: *Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:59 AM
> *To: *"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" <
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>, opnfv-project-leads <
> opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Cc: *"opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org" 
> *Subject: *[opnfv-tsc] Experimenting Cloud Service (GitHub + CircleCI)
> Recommended by TAC Infra WG
>
>
>
> Hello PTLs and Community,
>
>
>
> Following TAC Infra WG’s recommendation of the path of infrastructure
> evolution [1], and TAC’s discussion on May 22nd [2], TSC discussed this
> topic at our TSC meeting on May 28th.
>
>
>
> According to OPNFV TSC Meeting on May 28th [3], OPNFV TSC “*AGREED*: The
> TSC agrees with the recommendation from the TAC infra WG and will
> investigate how best to implement the recommendation within OPNFV.”
>
>
>
> We are starting the effort of investigating the implementation and
> transition plan. We will set up experimental repos in GitHub, and
> experiment project’s integration with CircleCI there. Some experts who
> already have experimented in TAC Infra WG, e.g. ONAP CLAMP, FD.io VPP,
> etc., will be able to help us.
>
>
>
> For those projects or anyone who are interested in participating in this
> experiment, please contact me directly.
>
>
>
> Thank you and have a great weekend.
>
> Bin
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/Infrastructure+Working+Group+Summary+Report
>
> [2] https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/2019-05-22+Meeting+notes
>
> [3]
> http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2019/opnfv-meeting.2019-05-28-12.55.html
>
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#5306):
> https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/5306
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/31977409/1217365

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Experimenting Cloud Service (GitHub + CircleCI) Recommended by TAC Infra WG

[HU, BIN]

Thank you Alec, and let’s work together to that direction.

Bin

From: Alec Hothan (ahothan) 
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 1:22 PM
To: HU, BIN ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
opnfv-project-leads 
Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Experimenting Cloud Service (GitHub + CircleCI) 
Recommended by TAC Infra WG

I would be interested to participate (NFVbench project). I am actually willing 
to try anything that moves us away from releng repo and JJB.

I would like to point out that the current CI/CD based on Jenkins is not 
providing sufficient permission for PTLs to customize as almost every aspect of 
CI/CD is based on the releng repo which requires lengthy turnaround time when 
the releng team is busy doing other work.

One example is a gerrit review I submitted about 7 days ago and still waiting 
for a review from the releng team. I have to generate new VM image versions in 
my CI/CD and such a simple task has proved difficult to achieve or adjust with 
the current framework.
Same goes with docker images generated in dockerhub and for which PTLs have no 
way to customize (e.g. remove stale images, edit the project dockerhub 
description content etc…) as it is owned by “opnfv”. I think these will get 
resolved with patience but I would have taken care of these roadblocks easily 
if I had more control on the CI/CD workflow for my project.

Using Jenkins as the CI/CD base engine might provide good support for exiting 
opnfv projects but my own experience with it has not been good overall as it 
relies on knowing the arcane behavior of JJB (Jenkins job builder) which is not 
exactly very intuitive, especially we have little way of testing our changes 
without involving the releng team and doing trial commits into the releng repo. 
The releng team has been doing a great job trying to keep up with the reviews 
generally but I don’t think we can continue that path to have releng team gate 
every single aspect of a project CI/CD, especially with less and less resources 
allocated to that task.
The only scalable way moving forward is to give more power to PTLs so they can 
customize their CI/CD as much as possible without having to depend on a third 
party team.

I hope the new proposal will move us to that direction.

Thanks

Alec

From: mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> on behalf 
of "HU, BIN" mailto:bh5...@att.com>>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:59 AM
To: 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>,
 opnfv-project-leads 
mailto:opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org>>
Cc: "opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org" 
mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: [opnfv-tsc] Experimenting Cloud Service (GitHub + CircleCI) 
Recommended by TAC Infra WG

Hello PTLs and Community,

Following TAC Infra WG’s recommendation of the path of infrastructure evolution 
[1], and TAC’s discussion on May 22nd [2], TSC discussed this topic at our TSC 
meeting on May 28th.

According to OPNFV TSC Meeting on May 28th [3], OPNFV TSC “AGREED: The TSC 
agrees with the recommendation from the TAC infra WG and will investigate how 
best to implement the recommendation within OPNFV.”

We are starting the effort of investigating the implementation and transition 
plan. We will set up experimental repos in GitHub, and experiment project’s 
integration with CircleCI there. Some experts who already have experimented in 
TAC Infra WG, e.g. ONAP CLAMP, FD.io VPP, etc., will be able to help us.

For those projects or anyone who are interested in participating in this 
experiment, please contact me directly.

Thank you and have a great weekend.
Bin

[1] 
https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/Infrastructure+Working+Group+Summary+Report
[2] 
https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/2019-05-22+Meeting+notes
[3] 
http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2019/opnfv-meeting.2019-05-28-12.55.html


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23225): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23225
Mute This Topic: