cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>
Subject Re: [Review Request] Re-enabling baremetal on master
Date Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:55:29 GMT
Hi,

I've updated baremetal-4.2 branch, added integration test for some of
baremetal related APIs, also fixed a bunch of baremetal API issues exposed
by the testing.

Thanks!

--Sheng




On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Chip Childers
<chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Chip Childers
> > <chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:00:33AM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've created the https://reviews.apache.org/r/11977/  for review.
> The
> > > > branch re-enabled the baremetal for master. And all major bugs are
> > > cleaned.
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1610
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1618
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1614
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1440
> > > >
> > > > In fact it's not a feature merge, because the code is already in
> MASTER
> > > > ready. We just disable it due to stability problem of 4.1 release.
> Now
> > > I've
> > > > tried to enable it, and the changeset is very small, mostly just
> revert
> > > the
> > > > old disabling baremetal codes, and fix some issues with introducing
> other
> > > > new features. Here is the summary:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > So David's standing veto was because of this comment (from him):
> > >
> > > "Baremetal seems to be suffering from a significant lack of unit tests
> > > and integration tests for marvin to consume. Let's get those in place
> > > before we consider re-enabling this."
> > >
> > > If I remember correctly, the reason that master has the code in it, is
> > > specifically because we decided that disabling the feature was easier
> to
> > > honor the veto than reverting all of the changes.
> > >
> > > That being said, have we addressed the original veto's concerns?
> > >
> >
> > Not yet. I didn't realize it's vetoed due to this. Let me see what can I
> do
> > about it.
>
> Awesome.  Thanks Sheng!
>
> >
> > In fact the above bugs cannot be detected for unit test or marvin test(I
> > even not sure if they're valid bugs or not, but at that time Frank is on
> > vacation and nobody took a look at these then decided disable the
> feature,
> > and after I re-enabled them, everything works fine for me).
>
> Yeah, I think that the bugs were just in need of triage.  The bugs
> themselves weren't the major issue (although they were concerning), as
> much as test coverage at either (or both) unit or integration levels.
>
> -chip
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message