cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] Using continuous integration to maintain our code quality...
Date Tue, 20 May 2014 22:40:41 GMT
Hugo without putting certain rules we are not going to get out of the situation. I think it
may seem draconian but stating "No merges are allowed without a successful run of the automation"
is beneficial for everyone. It forces focus on automation and helps mitigate regression. If
we run into challenges in implementing those rules like toolset not ready or infra then we
would have to fix those. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trippie [] On Behalf Of Hugo Trippaers
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:32 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Using continuous integration to maintain our code
> quality...
> Hey Alex,
> Nice job on getting this all done and working on some guidelines to improve
> quality of the overal guidelines. We discussed a lot of these things at the last
> CCC and i'm happy to see them here.
> I do have some feedback on the policy though.
> Specifically with the line stating "No merges are allowed without a successful
> run of the automation". You stated yourself that the infra running the
> automation is being run by Citrix. Introducing this statement links our policy
> to Citrix in such a way that we can't commit if the citrix supplied Infra is not
> availalbe. That doesn't sound like a good thing. 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.
> The JIRA process is pretty good and will certainly help with keeping track of
> what is going on, but is not mandatory in my opinion. Also arranging for a
> review is not a responsibility of the developer of a piece of code. If that is
> necessary it is the community that fails, the really responsibility to do code
> reviews is with the committers, "Each committer has a responsibility to
> monitor the changes made for potential issues, both coding and legal."
> (
> I'm a firm believer of providing tooling and support to help make "doing the
> right thing" as easy as possible. In my opinion the focus should be on making
> sure this tooling is as easy to use as possible so committers and contributors
> will want to use this, because it helps them instead of forcing them to use it
> by policy.
> Cheers,
> Hugo
> On 7 mei 2014, at 02:03, Alex Huang <> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This is something I brought up a long time ago but really didn't have the
> resources to get it all up and running until now.  Throughout the past year,
> Edison, Prasanna, Amogh, Bharat, Koushik, Talluri, and others have been
> chipping away at it.  At this point, we finally pull together a continuous
> integration setup that we can use to make sure that CloudStack master and
> the currently release branch are always stable.  This is getting pretty close to
> be completed and we like to share it with the community in hopes that we
> can reduce/eliminate that problems we've seen with our recent releases.
> Currently, the physical hardware are hosted by Citrix but we'll be more than
> willing to donate the work to infra when that's all settled.
> >
> > This does require effort from the community to make a change in their
> development process.  These steps are detailed at [1].  I like to get feedback
> on what everyone think about this.
> >
> > What have we done:
> >  - We replaced a large selection of the BVT tests to run with the simulator
> instead of actual hardware.  This shortens the duration of each BVT run.
> Today, a BVT that runs tests for XenServer and KVM completes in 30-40
> minutes.
> >  - We will run the new BVT on master and the current release branch on a
> continuous basis.
> >  - Developers can use Jenkins to ask BVT to be run on their branch so they
> can know it won't break the continuous integration before they merge to
> master and the current release branch.
> >
> > Please have a read and let me know what you think.
> >
> > --Alex
> >
> > [1]
> cess

View raw message