cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Angus <>
Subject RE: [Proposal] Concerning open PRs
Date Sat, 20 Feb 2016 12:31:56 GMT
Unfortunately the $dayjob keeps getting in the way of our CI work, however wrt to PRs - we
should have Jenkins build and keep the RPM artefacts relating to a pull request (for a fix
length of time). This will enable 'users' to deploy an environment based on those RPMs and
test it. The requirement to build the RPMs from a PR in Git is an ENORMOUS barrier to non-devs.

I don't know how to configure this in Jenkins (without breaking more than I fix)


Paul Angus
VP Technology   ,       ShapeBlue

d:      +44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540<tel:+44%20203%20617%200528%20|%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540>
    |      m:      +44 7711 418784<tel:+44%207711%20418784>

e: | t: @cloudyangus<|%20t:%20@cloudyangus>
     |      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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wilder Rodrigues []
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Concerning open PRs

Hi there all,

@Sebastian: it might look a bit extreme, but I believe that at the moment it might be easier
to get at least 5 of the community members investing 1 day per week to run automated tests
on PRs, and hopefully merging them, than get 1 member to work 100% having a proper CI in place.

Please don't get me wrong: CI is important and we need that! I just don't see how the community
can collaborate to get it done within a couple of weeks. For example, how could I, with 5-6
hours per week, help on that? I know that with such time I can help reviewing starting automated
tests on a couple of PRs.

@Jeff: yes, perhaps having to test a PR before creating one is too much, because not everybody
has a test environment to run automated tests. However, the "nobody likes testing" should
not be the way we start with this idea.

What if we try the following:

* If the person creating a PR has tested his/her changes either manually/automated with simulator/hardware
and shows some evidences, then having a review + integration tests from a comm member - whilst
CI is not done, should be enough to get a LGTM and the PR should be tested.

But a LGTM on code review only should not suffice.

For UI changes that have been tested by the author with screenshots on the PR, a code review
with 1 LGTM should be enough to merge it.

What do you guys think?


Sent from my iPhone

> On 19 Feb 2016, at 19:43, Ramanath Katru <> wrote:
> Can we get the CI proposed by Bharat up onto the ASF servers? While may not be complete
or even if its running with issues, why not start it over there and have everyone fix it to
get it up and running?
> Ram Katru
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebgoa []
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 2:07 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Concerning open PRs
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Wilder Rodrigues <>
>> Hi all,
>> It’s been a long time, but the Wolverine is not dead yet. ;)
>> Currently we have 175 opened PRs, which we all agree to be a lot, given the fact
that few people, if any, are testing/merging them. I have been a bit off the radar, but from
next week I will start helping to get some of those PRs tested and, hopefully, merged.
>> In order to get the community working as an unit, I would like to propose the following:
>> * One should only create a PR after testing an existing PR.
>> - By testing I mean… testing. Not just looking into it and saying “LGTM”. Manual
tests should also count, with screenshots attached to the PR.
>> That will make those with test environment pitch in and help, and in addition might
also decrease the frenzy for creating PRs which occasionally won’t be tested within a month
time - or longer.
>> For others not creating PRs that often, like me, we should help testing at least
1 PR per week.
>> Being a bit more blunt now, if a PR is created but the person does not contribute
with testing an existing one, the new PR should be closed.
>> What do you think?
> That sounds too extreme to my taste.
> Bottom line, folks who submit PR need to stay on top of them and address comments.
> But then we need to have that CI in place
> -sebastien
>> Cheers,
>> Wilder
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/related (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message