cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?
Date Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:36:24 GMT
Everything else aside, do we really think that this could be backed
out cleanly? The initial merge should be easy to pull out, but 6
months of follow on work? There's no way that's coming out cleanly.

--David

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Raja Pullela <raja.pullela@citrix.com> wrote:
> @wilder, Not sure why you would think it as a nonsense approach? sure, you realize amount
of code churn and blockers we are dealing with when 4.6 is ready to go out.
>
> Agreed, the refactoring happened several months ago and we could have taken a closer
look then-   the recent blockers filed have uncovered areas where in the implementation didn't
exist.  I will post the bug details around this.
>
> Obviously, the refactoring changes missed multiple critical test scenarios and will take
substantial time to test/stabilize.
>
> The BVTs are coming good for basic zone and Adv zone there are still a number of failures
and it will take us good time to get those fixed.
>
> Besides the BVTs, regression tests are in a very bad shape.  Hope to get to these starting
next week.
>
> Please see my latest bvt report, I will post in another 2 hrs, waiting for a new run
to complete.
>
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 7:00 PM, sebgoa <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma <RBergsma@schubergphilis.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months ago?
And expect it to become more stable?
>>
>> I have not followed all the latest development, but if we are talking about the VR
refactoring, indeed it happened several months back. Reverting it now does not seem like a
good idea.
>>
>> I am probably missed a beat here, but the latest BVT results sent by Raja showed
XS tests almost at 100%, there were only some issues with KVM.
>>
>>> The problem, in MHO, is not that we find bugs that we consider blockers. The
problem is we are unable to resolve them effectively because master is unstable. There currently
isn’t a single PR that solves it, hence there is no way to test PRs. This is because we
have many PRs open and they were all branched off of a master that doesn’t work. I simply
can't test proposed PRs.
>>>
>>> This problem occurred about 3 weeks ago, because before that master worked and
we could solve issues and merge PRs. I’m not saying it was bug-free, but at least we could
work on stabilising it. Most likely, we accepted a “fix” that made things worse. Probably
even multiple of them.
>>
>> Master seemed stable and PR where being merged towards 4.6 with success (it seemed),
so indeed if we have issues now of stability, we should identify what caused it
>>
>>> To get out of this, I think we need to combine a few PRs that make it stable.
I’ll have a look today with Wilder and Funs to see if what fixes we need to combine to make
it work again. O
>>> nce we merge it and master actually works again, we can rebase any open PR with
current master and work from there.
>>
>> Potentially, if you identify the commit or commits that brought the instability you
could revert to that point and play forward PRs that did not render master unstable.
>>
>> Thanks for looking into it.
>>
>> -seb
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Remi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 24/09/15 14:00, "Ramanath Katru" <ramanath.katru@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My vote is for the approach no.1 - to backout completely. Most of VR functionalities
are broken and are in a mess to say the least. It definitely will take some time and effort
from several folks to get it to a stable state.
>>>>
>>>> Ram Katru
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pullela@citrix.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:06 PM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Subject: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand a concern on the VR changes was raised earlier.  My apologies
to restart this thread again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, my last conversation with Jayapal, who has fixed/have been fixing
lot of VR issues, about the VR issues and he is pretty concerned about the refactoring that
has happened.  I have had the same concern for sometime now  (VR issues have been on the list
of issues to be looked into for at least 4+ weeks) and wanted to see a good solution for this-
with VR being very fundamental to the system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Couple of solutions/proposals –
>>>>
>>>> 1)      Back out the VR changes – Pros: VR has been stable for some time
and it is working well.
>>>>
>>>> 2)      Continue to fix/stability VR changes -   Concerns: is the unknowns,
what we will find out and how long this will take to stabilize the VR functionality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please chime in if you have any thoughts or concerns around this,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>> Raja
>>

Mime
View raw message