cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] Using continuous integration to maintain our code quality...
Date Tue, 27 May 2014 16:20:14 GMT
Sorry for the late replies on this folks.  I've been away for my $dayjob at Citrix.  Let me
try to see if I can make clear what I see as objections/questions/understandings and address
them one by one.  If I got them wrong, let me know and please clarify what you're asking.

> Why don't Citrix developers show us how they would do it in the open ? Right now it's
all hidden.
I take this to indicate that there's a misunderstanding that this is a Citrix policy that
the Citrix developers are following currently in secret and we're trying to ask the community
to follow as well.

The fact is Citrix has no such policy currently and I'm trying to get Citrix management to
agree to this checkin policy because of how poorly the previous releases have been going as
well.  I proposed this mainly because I see that because the project is so broad in scope
that without a CI system to give people a fundamental comfort that they didn't break anything,
it will be very difficult for the project to move forward.  If Citrix developers were doing
this before, we wouldn't have seen some of the reverts and large number of RCs in current
and previous releases.

@Chip and @Hugo
> Correct, and my statement stands.  I'm -1 on any policy within the project
> that enforces the use of a single company's resources if they are only
> controlled by that company.  Let's see how we can move this to the ASF (and
> tweak / tune based on a better understanding of usage) before considering
> it a project "policy".

I think that's fair.  And if anything in this proposal that I worried about, this is it. 
The problem for me is we haven't gotten there for ASF infra in two years and I'm worried that
given the problems we're seeing with 4.4, we will lose momentum if we simply wait.  I'm perfectly
fine with exploring ways to find a middle ground.  For example, if Citrix is to open the infrastructure
to community (I would need to find some way to convince Citrix), is that acceptable?  Opening
it to the public would still mean the on-going cost is provided by Citrix so it's not truly
independent of Citrix.  I'm open to any suggestions to move us forward faster here.

> Anyway part of being a committer is the responsibility to make a correct decision when
and how to commit to the central code base, this includes deciding when running automation
tests is appropriate. You know i’m in favor of quality controls and i am a strong proponent
of testing before committing, but each committer has his own responsibility in this and has
to show he/she takes this seriously.

While I do trust the committers to be responsible (which is what I gather from the above quote),
the problem is that the project is too broad and deep.  Just being responsible is not enough
to ensure that quality is not adversely affected.  As a committer, I rather give up a bit
of my liberties than to see the community produce poor quality releases.  That's why I made
this proposal.

BTW, I especially apologize for the late reply on this email.  I think your email illustrated
Sebastien and Chip's points as well but it came in to my inbox really late due to the mailing
list problems so it was buried under a bunch of other emails.

Let me know what we can do, particularly on the how we can make this an independent process


View raw message