Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPpf5a2RvMg8oMv8zwONMcM7jRY6w+_5R=GmsZOPqYr7GF+Mug@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGQtxvZis3evPU6YtjHYyJjOxd4uDkS2GFPK3-afVcUkZ3JDnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGQtxvZqJX=thRkzpmyTQVPMabJ+PHRjiJwOyDJvoY=rUSrT7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <85B56B1AEDD2674A82DEC8B61E1218292587C880@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
 <CAGQtxvYNs3jVNpnRVqZ=DCpJL32f4SkwugA_rACPwBss4G90Kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <85B56B1AEDD2674A82DEC8B61E1218292587CCC5@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
 <CAPpf5a2RvMg8oMv8zwONMcM7jRY6w+_5R=GmsZOPqYr7GF+Mug@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 04:21:47 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAKprHVZbjjS6NYtimPYY1OW--hccKL5-sikEqnJth3GAk4ZjeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
 information)
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Rajani:

I signed up to get an initial pass done, but haven't yet had the
cycles. It's top of my list for next week.

We wanted to get something up and try it to have something demonstrable.

--David


On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Rajani Karuturi <rajani@apache.org> wrote:
> I like github+jenkins approach. In the current Travis setup, the wait time
> for getting it to run is high(especially if there are more commits around
> the time) and often timesout.
>
> I think we should have separate jenkins jobs for commits and pull requests.
> For the commits, instead of it running for every commit, may be it could
> run periodically for all the changes during the time.
>
> Is anyone working on the jenkins plugin already or do we have any
> volunteers?
>
>
>
> ~Rajani
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Stephen Turner <Stephen.Turner@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed, I was hoping for some comments. Maybe an executive summary would
>> help:
>>
>> * We would like to have a commit/review mechanism that is much easier for
>> new contributors than the current one
>> * Committers cannot be forced to use it, but the benefits should be so
>> obvious that it's the norm (except for emergencies or security patches)
>> * We propose GitHub as the most familiar and easy to use system
>> * All pull requests should trigger Jenkins to run automated tests, and we
>> shouldn't accept the pull request until they've passed
>>
>> What have I forgotten? And does anyone think we're not on the right track?
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Turner
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 29 January 2015 12:25
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>> information)
>>
>> no worries, everybody is busy with glibc anyway these days. I didn't have
>> any feedback to our pages, however, That worries me more.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stephen Turner <Stephen.Turner@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I was ill yesterday. But I wasn't sure what more we had to
>> discuss before the hardware arrives.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stephen Turner
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: 28 January 2015 12:39
>> > To: dev
>> > Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>> > information)
>> >
>> > I did not see any reactions, are we on for tonight?
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> H,
>> >>
>> >> This is a question for feedback (fyi == For Your Input;). In the
>> >> meetings we had so far, we created a couple of lists. These are our
>> >> only deliverables to date. In order to know if we are on the right
>> >> track I would like some feedback.
>> >>
>> >> First of all there is the highlevel requirement [1]. It should
>> >> contain everything we want to accomplish in the end. We will revisit
>> >> it next Wednesday and in regular iterations while the project goes
>> >> on. I hope everybody that won't attend next session will have their
>> >> comments sent to us by then.
>> >>
>> >> Then there are two detail pages that we have come up with so far and
>> >> these are not done until there is some form of consensus on them in
>> >> the community. Especially [2] is a page that we should all agree on
>> >> in the end. Right now it is just a working document that we will use
>> >> to implement our own way of working and later propose everybody will.
>> >> It describes what we think are the basics of cloudstack as opposed to
>> >> the extras that people should support on their own and will be
>> >> abandoned if nobody does.
>> >>
>> >> The third page [3] contains a set of requirements that we think will
>> >> make a gate for contributions that is workable for the community.
>> >>
>> >> please have a look and give us your feedback.
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Quality+and+Pr
>> >> o
>> >> cess+Improvement+Initiative [2]
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+bas
>> >> i
>> >> c+functionalities [3]
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Gate+requireme
>> >> n
>> >> ts
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (fyi: we are looking to implement a simple contribution workflow
>> >> based on github in combination with jenkins pull request builder for
>> >> now and are still considering what would have to be done to implement
>> >> something like gerrit.)
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >> --
>> >> Daan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>