cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bharat Kumar <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Freeze everything until we get CI
Date Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:49:39 GMT
Hi All,

I agree that we need to have a CI to deal with the large volume of PRs. The current travis
CI is not good enough as it runs only simulator tests.
We identified this issue and came up with a effective CI for automating test runs for a each
PR. This is already functional, with few github integration aspects pending. We are internally
stabilizing it before sharing it.

We have been in touch with David Nalley ( CC’ed )  in making this operational for entire
community using ACS infra.

For your reference, here is the FS I have shared with the community earlier and also in this
thread before, your feedback is welcome.


On 28-Jan-2016, at 4:26 PM, Rohit Yadav <<>>


I’m sorry to get to have the PRs merged without adhering to the strict testing requirements.
While I think PRs were alright and it did not break anything, the way it was merged made people
uncomfortable that there is some sort of haste in doing this fast which there is none.

I’ll not repeat this and hope you understand that I never had any hidden agenda but to simply
help people with some PRs.


On 28-Jan-2016, at 11:36 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <<>>

Hi Folks,

My proposal to freeze until we get CI was indeed due to seeing Rohit’s commit but was by
no means a personal attack or judgment.

We have lots of PR pending (as mentioned before by Remi) and we need people to help review
and test.
So thanks to Rohit.

My only concerns were two fold:

1- We need  to keep to adhere to our release principles:

Hence I replied to some PR asking if they needed to be merged directly in master or not and
wondered about the release branches.

With so many releases in flight it is not yet clear to me where we start to apply a PR ?

2- We need to keep testing and post results of tests.

Currently it is manual and but there has been a strong guarantee in the last releases that
the PR where not going to break things.
While I agree that some PR are small and *should* not break things, history has shown that
even small unrelated things *somehow* can affect the behavior of cloudstack.

So I proposed a freeze because:

- Remi stepped down as RM and we don’t have an official RM yet.
- The code has reached a solid state and we don’t want to do anything that changes that
- We have a proposal for LTS on the floor
- We still don’t have CI.

So my standpoint is that we focused in the last 6 months on getting our release principles
right (pending LTS principles), code has stabilized and we can release. Awesome.

Now is probably a good time to concentrate our limited resources on figuring out automated

- For instance as far as I know Travis is bonkers…(reports green but does not do anything)
- And with citrix stepping out, we need to take control of the jenkins slaves (some of which
are on AWS and still paid by Citrix…)

My email while triggered by seeing Rohit’s commits, was not a judgement or critic of his
actions, so let’s not get into a personal argument here.


On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Rohit Yadav <> wrote:

So, since some have directly (over IM etc) or indirectly have thrown allegations on me since
I merged most of the PRs.
Here is a list of those 12 PRs and answers on why they were merged on case-by-case basis.
Please keep any further replies technical and to the specific PR, please point out and revert
if needed:


Enough LGTMs, JS related change and fix tested with UI screenshot from Remi. I personally
looked at the diff and therefore then merged.


Enough LGTMs, a simple NPE fix one-liner. I personally thought we can cheat here and given
Travis/Jenkins passed I merged it.


Enough LGTMs, the diff only removed unused variable leading to change in the constructor definition.
Explicit integration tests are not necessary as it’d simply dead-code removal and as the
simulator smoke tests passed with Travis/Jenkins passed so I merged it.


Enough LGTMs. This change is related to a marvin test itself where it adds 2 new test methods
— so no need to run regression integration test. The integration test result of the marvin
test was shared in the comment. PR merged on this basis.


Enough LGTMs and regression tests results (shared as attachments by Daan, in case someone
missed), so merged.


Enough LGTMs and regression tests results (shared as attachments by Daan, in case someone
missed), so merged.


Enough LGTMs and regression tests results by Remi, so merged.


Enough LGTMs and only text changes in API doc-string so merged given Travis/Jenkins passed.


Enough LGTMs and NPE fixes, so no explicit integration tests required given Travis/Jenkins


Enough LGTMs and simple Java OOP fix with Travis/Jenkins passed so merged this. I’m aware
of this codebase.


Enough LGTMs, the changes would require manual tests wrt usage server etc as well as confirmed
in comments. I had seen the regression test result (of the new/modified marvin test wrt of
the feature) so merged. The regression test suite does not include this among other tests.


Enough LGTMs, this was a findbugs related fix. Travis/Jenkins passed on it and the findbugs
mvn job result was shared to confirm that the fix works now. This was not merged by me.


Rohit Yadav
Software Architect   ,       ShapeBlue
d:    | s: +44 203 603 0540   |      m:      +91 8826230892
e: | t:   |      w:
a:   53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK

Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India
LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under
license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic
of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use
of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based
upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe
you have received this email in error.

Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
IaaS Cloud Design & Build | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
CloudStack Consulting | CloudStack Software Engineering
CloudStack Infrastructure Support | CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses


Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<> |
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<>
CloudStack Consulting<> | CloudStack Software
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<>
| CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message