cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Freeze everything until we get CI
Date Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:56:55 GMT
All,

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.

Regards.

> On 28-Jan-2016, at 11:36 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up
>
> 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
CI.
>
> - 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.
>
> -Sebastien
>
>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com> 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:
>>
>> 1. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1288
>>
>> Enough LGTMs, JS related change and fix tested with UI screenshot from Remi. I personally
looked at the diff and therefore then merged.
>>
>> 2. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1274/files
>>
>> Enough LGTMs, a simple NPE fix one-liner. I personally thought we can cheat here
and given Travis/Jenkins passed I merged it.
>>
>> 3. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1261/files
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 4. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1048
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 5. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1044
>>
>> Enough LGTMs and regression tests results (shared as attachments by Daan, in case
someone missed), so merged.
>>
>> 6. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/969
>>
>> Enough LGTMs and regression tests results (shared as attachments by Daan, in case
someone missed), so merged.
>>
>> 7. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/855
>>
>> Enough LGTMs and regression tests results by Remi, so merged.
>>
>> 8. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/831
>>
>> Enough LGTMs and only text changes in API doc-string so merged given Travis/Jenkins
passed.
>>
>> 9. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/830/files
>>
>> Enough LGTMs and NPE fixes, so no explicit integration tests required given Travis/Jenkins
passed.
>>
>> 10. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1256/files
>>
>> Enough LGTMs and simple Java OOP fix with Travis/Jenkins passed so merged this. I’m
aware of this codebase.
>>
>> 11. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1240
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 12. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1289
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rohit Yadav
>> Software Architect   ,       ShapeBlue
>> d:    | s: +44 203 603 0540   |      m:      +91 8826230892
>> e:   rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com | t:   |      w:      www.shapeblue.com
>> 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
trademark.
>> 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
>

Regards.

Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> |
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | CloudStack Software
Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
| CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
Mime
View raw message