cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <Alex.Hu...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
Date Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:20:08 GMT
Ilya,

Thanks!  The current problem on this branch is we're trying to distinguish what's actually
broken on master and what's broken by introducing this change.  At this point, the branch
is basically frozen and only applying bug fixes once BVT found problems.

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:16 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
> 
> Alex,
> 
> I completely understand. Please keep us in the loop on the progress. If its
> functional to some extent - i.e. at least build succeeds without errors and
> major functionality is there, I can merge the code into CloudSand CS distro -
> to test it out and share it with whoever wants to try it.
> 
> Thanks
> ilya
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 9:16 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
> >
> > Given the current state of BVT, I don't think we can reliably merge
> > this into master.  It will have to wait for 4.3.  I apologize to those
> > who really want to see this feature in.  I myself have slaved over
> > this for some weeks, including missing the collab conference, but I
> > just cannot conscientiously push it in under the current circumstances.
> >
> > --Alex
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 7:11 AM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
> > >
> > > Ideally I would like to see all validation to be done on feature
> > > branch - BVTs and also manual validation of the P1 test cases from
> > > VM Sync test plan just like object store validation - sadhu has
> > > signed up for it along with Ilya. This would help us to identify feature
> specific issues.
> > >
> > > We are running BVTs right now which have high failure rate. Focusing
> > > on this part right now to reach parity with Master branch.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Trippie [mailto:trippie@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hugo Trippaers
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:32 PM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
> > >
> > > I agree with John that a change like this is very hard to test in an
> > > automated fashion. Still i have been looking at the numbers for the
> > > code coverage with cobertura. I was a bit disappointed to find that
> > > we have not made any progress with this merge with regards to unit
> > > tests and
> > total code coverage.
> > > We do not seem to be in a worse shape than before.
> > >
> > > @Sudha, it would be nice if you could add your view on this patch
> > > from the QA perspective? How would this patch affect your planning
> > > for
> > example?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Hugo
> > >
> > > On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:12 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @David The types of concurrency changes introduced in this patch
> > > > are extremely difficult to completely test in an automated fashion.
> > > > Therefore, code review for correctness is critical to ensure quality.
> > > > To be clear, I am not questioning the value of automated testing.
> > > > I am just noting that it's next to impossible to achieve full
> > > > coverage, and code review is an critical supplement.
> > > >
> > > > @Ilya I plan to review this patch, but I will be able to start
> > > > until next week.  I am also still reviewing object_store (a
> > > > separate procedural issue for another thread), and need to complete
> solidfire.
> > > > This backlog is precisely why need to be reviewing iteratively
> > > > throughout the dev cycle.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:35 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Hugo Trippaers
> > > >> <hugo@trippaers.nl>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think Ilya offers is great, my current stance is also to see
> > > >>> how we can
> > > bring this forward.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I've had the opportunity to meet with several people at the
> > > >>> Citrix office
> > > in Santa Clara, i'm actually working from their office at this moment.
> > > I think it's also the responsibility of someone who put in a -1 to
> > > work with the original committer to get the situation resolved. So
> > > i'll invest the time to help with the review as well.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It would be great if Alex or Kelven could take the time to
> > > >>> explain how
> > > this feature has been tested. That would give the community some
> > > insight as well.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> My main technical problem with this merge is that stuff is
> > > >>> moving all over
> > > the place without having even the slightest idea why. Now having
> > > discussed this with Alex in person i get the general idea of this
> > > merge, so can actually try to review it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think that John have nicely explained what we could do to
> > > >>> prevent
> > > situations like this in advance. I fully understand that big
> > > features or rewrites don't happen overnight and might show up near
> > > the end of the
> > release cycle.
> > > With the time based release cycle it's always a risk that some
> > > feature might not make it in on time. Getting more people involved
> > > and chunking the commits into master will greatly speed up the
> > > reviewing
> > process.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'll get back to this after spending some time on reviewing the
> > > >>> actual
> > > patch. In fact i would like to ask more people to have a look at
> > > this patch and reply to this thread with comments or remarks.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hugo
> > > >>
> > > >> So the problem in my mind, is that we don't have a way of
> > > >> verifying that master isn't broken, and won't be broken by any
> > > >> given merge. I look at even the minimal level of automated
> > > >> testing that I see today, and ~20% of integration tests are
> > > >> failing[1]. The regression set of tests (which isn't running as
> > > >> often) is seeing 75% of tests failing[2]. Heaping on more change
> > > >> when we are demonstrably already failing in many places is not
> behaving responsibly IMO.
> > > >> The question I'd pose is this - running the various automated
> > > >> tests is pretty cheap - whats the output of that compared to the
> > > >> current test output on master? Better or worse? If it hasn't been
> > > >> done, why
> > not?
> > > >> I desperately want these features, but not necessarily at the
> > > >> cost of further destabilizing what we have now in master - we
> > > >> can't continue accruing technical debt.
> > > >>
> > > >> --David
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/job/test-smoke-
> > > >> ma tr ix/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/ [2]
> > > >> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/job/test-regres
> > > >> si
> > > >> on
> > > >> -matrix/28/testReport/
> >
> 


Mime
View raw message