cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CCCEU15: on site discussions around QA and release of 4.6 report
Date Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:48:27 GMT
thanks guys,

To bad I couldn't stay for this but I'll take some time to send you my
nagging on this soon ;) I hope I can afford to spend a lot of time on
generic quality issues on Leaseweb's accord. We will be discussing this on
Monday.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion891@apache.org> wrote:

> Here is a quick meeting note of a round table related to new QA
> infrastructure
> and tests of 4.6 release.
>
> State of the QA infrastructure donated by Citrix
> ================================================
>
> ~ 10 servers in viginial
>
> Questions:
> 1. how to use it
> 2. how do we control it
>
> nested hypervisor is slow
>
> BVT cycle time  2 to 3 hours
>
> - Citrix QA to provide solution to rebuild hypervisor after each testrun.
> - hardware installation perform and ready to be provisionned.
> - Possiblity to run QA job on vendor site via jenkins slaves
> - Need to move jenkins jobs running on j.bac.o into jenkins.apache.org
> - Need a box to build systemvm template on server having Virtual-box
>
>
> ACS 4.6
> =======
>
> - 4 blockers left
> - Please comment what you did to test a PR with your LGTM.
> - Most recent PR does not include tests or does not point which tests PR's
> are
>   solving
> - Look like the new PR model solve the past issue where master build was
> broken
>   most of the time.
> - Travis does not test all from the simulator, we will enable all test,
> this
>   will slow down travis jobs but will help on quality.
> - Need QA volunteers to test 4.6 so we can push for an RC soon.
> - update the README.md about how to contribute the CloudStack to PR.
> - Still need to build a release-note for 4.6
> - [NEED VOTE] for PR that will not have response to comment will be close
> after
>   X days, submitter can still reopen the PR.
> - Need more unit test. We have a hard need for unittest because they help
> trap
>   small function issues that can cause serious damaged to running VM and
> speedup
>   guarantee quality of releases.
> - [VOTE or DISCUSS needed] new features should be ported via multiple PRs
> into
>   a community would see feature evolution feature branch. When a feature is
>   ready then a merge would be requested. but fork should be prefer as it's
> also
>   to do collaborative coding on github fork.
> - lot of discussion around unit tests and marvin tests.
>



-- 
Daan

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