Re: [PROPOSAL] Using continuous integration to maintain our code quality...

[Amogh Vasekar <am...@citrix.com>]

Bumping up this thread since another one seems to be starting over CI

Amogh

On 5/27/14 8:28 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:

>On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>
>wrote:
>>> Like Chip, I am very concerned with this being dependent on a single
>>> company, even if its the company that employs me. It isn't
>>>sustainable, it
>>> excludes others from contributing, and makes the project less
>>>independent
>>> because it depends on a single company's infrastructure.
>>
>> Agreed there.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm also unclear on the answer to the question in the FAQ. The first
>>>time I
>>> read it, I got the impression that you were happy to bring it up on
>>>hardware
>>> at the ASF if the ASF wanted to own it. The second time I read it I
>>>wondered
>>> if you meant that Citrix was going to attempt to donate hardware.
>>>
>> Sorry if I did not make that clear.  I meant the scripts/code that we
>>wrote are checked in publicly and we're willing to help set it up if ASF
>>provided the hardware.  I have not approach Citrix on donating the
>>actual hardware.  Although I can approach them if it speeds up the
>>adoption process.
>>
>>> Finally - what do you think you need from ASF infra to make this
>>>happen?
>>>
>>
>> It's currently about 10 servers with two networks.  One network is
>>static with IPMI to PXE boot the machines.  The other network is the
>>actual data network that CloudStack uses.  That's actually just enough
>>for XenServer and KVM.  In order to accommodate for HyperV, Bare Metal,
>>LXC, (which we do not have any test cases in the automation suits
>>currently) we will need even more machines.  We might be able to use
>>nested virtualization for the hypervisors to maintain server count at
>>ten or a little more than ten but we haven't explore that yet.
>>
>> The CI process is up and running on those machines but because we
>>didn't have CI running on master before, automation tests that were
>>passing for 4.3 are now broken again on 4.4. and master.  I think Sudha
>>already reported on the list that QA is busy trying to fix all the
>>automation tests to bring CI on 4.4-forward and master back to 100% pass
>>rate.  Unfortunately, it's been delaying our effort to put this out in
>>the public and let the community try this themselves.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>
>So the board just approved a 3 month budget, but the new board will
>have to take up the remainder of the FY budget shortly after coming
>into office. Perhaps worth coming up with an estimate of what this
>will cost/need and getting it to president@ before that new budget is
>taken up.
>
>--David