You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> on 2015/02/04 05:52:40 UTC
Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your information)
I like github+jenkins approach. In the current Travis setup, the wait time
for getting it to run is high(especially if there are more commits around
the time) and often timesout.
I think we should have separate jenkins jobs for commits and pull requests.
For the commits, instead of it running for every commit, may be it could
run periodically for all the changes during the time.
Is anyone working on the jenkins plugin already or do we have any
volunteers?
~Rajani
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>
wrote:
> Agreed, I was hoping for some comments. Maybe an executive summary would
> help:
>
> * We would like to have a commit/review mechanism that is much easier for
> new contributors than the current one
> * Committers cannot be forced to use it, but the benefits should be so
> obvious that it's the norm (except for emergencies or security patches)
> * We propose GitHub as the most familiar and easy to use system
> * All pull requests should trigger Jenkins to run automated tests, and we
> shouldn't accept the pull request until they've passed
>
> What have I forgotten? And does anyone think we're not on the right track?
>
> --
> Stephen Turner
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> Sent: 29 January 2015 12:25
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
> information)
>
> no worries, everybody is busy with glibc anyway these days. I didn't have
> any feedback to our pages, however, That worries me more.
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > Sorry, I was ill yesterday. But I wasn't sure what more we had to
> discuss before the hardware arrives.
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Turner
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 28 January 2015 12:39
> > To: dev
> > Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
> > information)
> >
> > I did not see any reactions, are we on for tonight?
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> H,
> >>
> >> This is a question for feedback (fyi == For Your Input;). In the
> >> meetings we had so far, we created a couple of lists. These are our
> >> only deliverables to date. In order to know if we are on the right
> >> track I would like some feedback.
> >>
> >> First of all there is the highlevel requirement [1]. It should
> >> contain everything we want to accomplish in the end. We will revisit
> >> it next Wednesday and in regular iterations while the project goes
> >> on. I hope everybody that won't attend next session will have their
> >> comments sent to us by then.
> >>
> >> Then there are two detail pages that we have come up with so far and
> >> these are not done until there is some form of consensus on them in
> >> the community. Especially [2] is a page that we should all agree on
> >> in the end. Right now it is just a working document that we will use
> >> to implement our own way of working and later propose everybody will.
> >> It describes what we think are the basics of cloudstack as opposed to
> >> the extras that people should support on their own and will be
> >> abandoned if nobody does.
> >>
> >> The third page [3] contains a set of requirements that we think will
> >> make a gate for contributions that is workable for the community.
> >>
> >> please have a look and give us your feedback.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Quality+and+Pr
> >> o
> >> cess+Improvement+Initiative [2]
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+bas
> >> i
> >> c+functionalities [3]
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Gate+requireme
> >> n
> >> ts
> >>
> >>
> >> (fyi: we are looking to implement a simple contribution workflow
> >> based on github in combination with jenkins pull request builder for
> >> now and are still considering what would have to be done to implement
> >> something like gerrit.)
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> --
> >> Daan
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your information)
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
notice that all the master branch runs in your travis job fail due to
timeout as well.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> Hi Daan,
>
> The cool thing about Travis is that you can create your own Travis job
> with your Github ACS repo (from which you created/sent the PR) and
> control its jobs. For example, I created one for our team here:
> https://travis-ci.org/shapeblue/cloudstack/builds
>
>
> On Wednesday 04 February 2015 05:51 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>
>> I noticed that travis doesn't complete anymore as the five jobs take
>> to long to complete. effectively we have nothing at the moment that
>> automatically checks.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rajani:
>>>
>>> I signed up to get an initial pass done, but haven't yet had the
>>> cycles. It's top of my list for next week.
>>>
>>> We wanted to get something up and try it to have something demonstrable.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like github+jenkins approach. In the current Travis setup, the wait
>>>> time
>>>> for getting it to run is high(especially if there are more commits
>>>> around
>>>> the time) and often timesout.
>>>>
>>>> I think we should have separate jenkins jobs for commits and pull
>>>> requests.
>>>> For the commits, instead of it running for every commit, may be it could
>>>> run periodically for all the changes during the time.
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone working on the jenkins plugin already or do we have any
>>>> volunteers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~Rajani
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Stephen Turner
>>>> <St...@citrix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, I was hoping for some comments. Maybe an executive summary
>>>>> would
>>>>> help:
>>>>>
>>>>> * We would like to have a commit/review mechanism that is much easier
>>>>> for
>>>>> new contributors than the current one
>>>>> * Committers cannot be forced to use it, but the benefits should be so
>>>>> obvious that it's the norm (except for emergencies or security patches)
>>>>> * We propose GitHub as the most familiar and easy to use system
>>>>> * All pull requests should trigger Jenkins to run automated tests, and
>>>>> we
>>>>> shouldn't accept the pull request until they've passed
>>>>>
>>>>> What have I forgotten? And does anyone think we're not on the right
>>>>> track?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stephen Turner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: 29 January 2015 12:25
>>>>> To: dev
>>>>> Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>>>>> information)
>>>>>
>>>>> no worries, everybody is busy with glibc anyway these days. I didn't
>>>>> have
>>>>> any feedback to our pages, however, That worries me more.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stephen Turner
>>>>> <St...@citrix.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I was ill yesterday. But I wasn't sure what more we had to
>>>>>
>>>>> discuss before the hardware arrives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Stephen Turner
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: 28 January 2015 12:39
>>>>>> To: dev
>>>>>> Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>>>>>> information)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not see any reactions, are we on for tonight?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Daan Hoogland
>>>>>> <da...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a question for feedback (fyi == For Your Input;). In the
>>>>>>> meetings we had so far, we created a couple of lists. These are our
>>>>>>> only deliverables to date. In order to know if we are on the right
>>>>>>> track I would like some feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all there is the highlevel requirement [1]. It should
>>>>>>> contain everything we want to accomplish in the end. We will revisit
>>>>>>> it next Wednesday and in regular iterations while the project goes
>>>>>>> on. I hope everybody that won't attend next session will have their
>>>>>>> comments sent to us by then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then there are two detail pages that we have come up with so far and
>>>>>>> these are not done until there is some form of consensus on them in
>>>>>>> the community. Especially [2] is a page that we should all agree on
>>>>>>> in the end. Right now it is just a working document that we will use
>>>>>>> to implement our own way of working and later propose everybody will.
>>>>>>> It describes what we think are the basics of cloudstack as opposed to
>>>>>>> the extras that people should support on their own and will be
>>>>>>> abandoned if nobody does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The third page [3] contains a set of requirements that we think will
>>>>>>> make a gate for contributions that is workable for the community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> please have a look and give us your feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Quality+and+Pr
>>>>>>> o
>>>>>>> cess+Improvement+Initiative [2]
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+bas
>>>>>>> i
>>>>>>> c+functionalities [3]
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Gate+requireme
>>>>>>> n
>>>>>>> ts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (fyi: we are looking to implement a simple contribution workflow
>>>>>>> based on github in combination with jenkins pull request builder for
>>>>>>> now and are still considering what would have to be done to implement
>>>>>>> something like gerrit.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daan
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> M. +91 8826230892 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
> PS. If you see any footer below, I did not add it :)
> 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/>
>
> 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. 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.
--
Daan
Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your information)
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi Daan,
The cool thing about Travis is that you can create your own Travis job
with your Github ACS repo (from which you created/sent the PR) and
control its jobs. For example, I created one for our team here:
https://travis-ci.org/shapeblue/cloudstack/builds
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 05:51 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> I noticed that travis doesn't complete anymore as the five jobs take
> to long to complete. effectively we have nothing at the moment that
> automatically checks.
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> Rajani:
>>
>> I signed up to get an initial pass done, but haven't yet had the
>> cycles. It's top of my list for next week.
>>
>> We wanted to get something up and try it to have something demonstrable.
>>
>> --David
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I like github+jenkins approach. In the current Travis setup, the wait time
>>> for getting it to run is high(especially if there are more commits around
>>> the time) and often timesout.
>>>
>>> I think we should have separate jenkins jobs for commits and pull requests.
>>> For the commits, instead of it running for every commit, may be it could
>>> run periodically for all the changes during the time.
>>>
>>> Is anyone working on the jenkins plugin already or do we have any
>>> volunteers?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~Rajani
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed, I was hoping for some comments. Maybe an executive summary would
>>>> help:
>>>>
>>>> * We would like to have a commit/review mechanism that is much easier for
>>>> new contributors than the current one
>>>> * Committers cannot be forced to use it, but the benefits should be so
>>>> obvious that it's the norm (except for emergencies or security patches)
>>>> * We propose GitHub as the most familiar and easy to use system
>>>> * All pull requests should trigger Jenkins to run automated tests, and we
>>>> shouldn't accept the pull request until they've passed
>>>>
>>>> What have I forgotten? And does anyone think we're not on the right track?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephen Turner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: 29 January 2015 12:25
>>>> To: dev
>>>> Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>>>> information)
>>>>
>>>> no worries, everybody is busy with glibc anyway these days. I didn't have
>>>> any feedback to our pages, however, That worries me more.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, I was ill yesterday. But I wasn't sure what more we had to
>>>> discuss before the hardware arrives.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stephen Turner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: 28 January 2015 12:39
>>>>> To: dev
>>>>> Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>>>>> information)
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not see any reactions, are we on for tonight?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> H,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a question for feedback (fyi == For Your Input;). In the
>>>>>> meetings we had so far, we created a couple of lists. These are our
>>>>>> only deliverables to date. In order to know if we are on the right
>>>>>> track I would like some feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all there is the highlevel requirement [1]. It should
>>>>>> contain everything we want to accomplish in the end. We will revisit
>>>>>> it next Wednesday and in regular iterations while the project goes
>>>>>> on. I hope everybody that won't attend next session will have their
>>>>>> comments sent to us by then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then there are two detail pages that we have come up with so far and
>>>>>> these are not done until there is some form of consensus on them in
>>>>>> the community. Especially [2] is a page that we should all agree on
>>>>>> in the end. Right now it is just a working document that we will use
>>>>>> to implement our own way of working and later propose everybody will.
>>>>>> It describes what we think are the basics of cloudstack as opposed to
>>>>>> the extras that people should support on their own and will be
>>>>>> abandoned if nobody does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The third page [3] contains a set of requirements that we think will
>>>>>> make a gate for contributions that is workable for the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please have a look and give us your feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Quality+and+Pr
>>>>>> o
>>>>>> cess+Improvement+Initiative [2]
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+bas
>>>>>> i
>>>>>> c+functionalities [3]
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Gate+requireme
>>>>>> n
>>>>>> ts
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (fyi: we are looking to implement a simple contribution workflow
>>>>>> based on github in combination with jenkins pull request builder for
>>>>>> now and are still considering what would have to be done to implement
>>>>>> something like gerrit.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
M. +91 8826230892 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
PS. If you see any footer below, I did not add it :)
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/>
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. 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.
Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your information)
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
I noticed that travis doesn't complete anymore as the five jobs take
to long to complete. effectively we have nothing at the moment that
automatically checks.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> Rajani:
>
> I signed up to get an initial pass done, but haven't yet had the
> cycles. It's top of my list for next week.
>
> We wanted to get something up and try it to have something demonstrable.
>
> --David
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I like github+jenkins approach. In the current Travis setup, the wait time
>> for getting it to run is high(especially if there are more commits around
>> the time) and often timesout.
>>
>> I think we should have separate jenkins jobs for commits and pull requests.
>> For the commits, instead of it running for every commit, may be it could
>> run periodically for all the changes during the time.
>>
>> Is anyone working on the jenkins plugin already or do we have any
>> volunteers?
>>
>>
>>
>> ~Rajani
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed, I was hoping for some comments. Maybe an executive summary would
>>> help:
>>>
>>> * We would like to have a commit/review mechanism that is much easier for
>>> new contributors than the current one
>>> * Committers cannot be forced to use it, but the benefits should be so
>>> obvious that it's the norm (except for emergencies or security patches)
>>> * We propose GitHub as the most familiar and easy to use system
>>> * All pull requests should trigger Jenkins to run automated tests, and we
>>> shouldn't accept the pull request until they've passed
>>>
>>> What have I forgotten? And does anyone think we're not on the right track?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen Turner
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 29 January 2015 12:25
>>> To: dev
>>> Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>>> information)
>>>
>>> no worries, everybody is busy with glibc anyway these days. I didn't have
>>> any feedback to our pages, however, That worries me more.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Sorry, I was ill yesterday. But I wasn't sure what more we had to
>>> discuss before the hardware arrives.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Stephen Turner
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>> > Sent: 28 January 2015 12:39
>>> > To: dev
>>> > Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>>> > information)
>>> >
>>> > I did not see any reactions, are we on for tonight?
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> H,
>>> >>
>>> >> This is a question for feedback (fyi == For Your Input;). In the
>>> >> meetings we had so far, we created a couple of lists. These are our
>>> >> only deliverables to date. In order to know if we are on the right
>>> >> track I would like some feedback.
>>> >>
>>> >> First of all there is the highlevel requirement [1]. It should
>>> >> contain everything we want to accomplish in the end. We will revisit
>>> >> it next Wednesday and in regular iterations while the project goes
>>> >> on. I hope everybody that won't attend next session will have their
>>> >> comments sent to us by then.
>>> >>
>>> >> Then there are two detail pages that we have come up with so far and
>>> >> these are not done until there is some form of consensus on them in
>>> >> the community. Especially [2] is a page that we should all agree on
>>> >> in the end. Right now it is just a working document that we will use
>>> >> to implement our own way of working and later propose everybody will.
>>> >> It describes what we think are the basics of cloudstack as opposed to
>>> >> the extras that people should support on their own and will be
>>> >> abandoned if nobody does.
>>> >>
>>> >> The third page [3] contains a set of requirements that we think will
>>> >> make a gate for contributions that is workable for the community.
>>> >>
>>> >> please have a look and give us your feedback.
>>> >>
>>> >> [1]
>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Quality+and+Pr
>>> >> o
>>> >> cess+Improvement+Initiative [2]
>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+bas
>>> >> i
>>> >> c+functionalities [3]
>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Gate+requireme
>>> >> n
>>> >> ts
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> (fyi: we are looking to implement a simple contribution workflow
>>> >> based on github in combination with jenkins pull request builder for
>>> >> now and are still considering what would have to be done to implement
>>> >> something like gerrit.)
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks,
>>> >> --
>>> >> Daan
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Daan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>>
--
Daan
Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your information)
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
Rajani:
I signed up to get an initial pass done, but haven't yet had the
cycles. It's top of my list for next week.
We wanted to get something up and try it to have something demonstrable.
--David
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> I like github+jenkins approach. In the current Travis setup, the wait time
> for getting it to run is high(especially if there are more commits around
> the time) and often timesout.
>
> I think we should have separate jenkins jobs for commits and pull requests.
> For the commits, instead of it running for every commit, may be it could
> run periodically for all the changes during the time.
>
> Is anyone working on the jenkins plugin already or do we have any
> volunteers?
>
>
>
> ~Rajani
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed, I was hoping for some comments. Maybe an executive summary would
>> help:
>>
>> * We would like to have a commit/review mechanism that is much easier for
>> new contributors than the current one
>> * Committers cannot be forced to use it, but the benefits should be so
>> obvious that it's the norm (except for emergencies or security patches)
>> * We propose GitHub as the most familiar and easy to use system
>> * All pull requests should trigger Jenkins to run automated tests, and we
>> shouldn't accept the pull request until they've passed
>>
>> What have I forgotten? And does anyone think we're not on the right track?
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Turner
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 29 January 2015 12:25
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>> information)
>>
>> no worries, everybody is busy with glibc anyway these days. I didn't have
>> any feedback to our pages, however, That worries me more.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I was ill yesterday. But I wasn't sure what more we had to
>> discuss before the hardware arrives.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stephen Turner
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: 28 January 2015 12:39
>> > To: dev
>> > Subject: Re: quality improvement project status (fyi != just for your
>> > information)
>> >
>> > I did not see any reactions, are we on for tonight?
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> H,
>> >>
>> >> This is a question for feedback (fyi == For Your Input;). In the
>> >> meetings we had so far, we created a couple of lists. These are our
>> >> only deliverables to date. In order to know if we are on the right
>> >> track I would like some feedback.
>> >>
>> >> First of all there is the highlevel requirement [1]. It should
>> >> contain everything we want to accomplish in the end. We will revisit
>> >> it next Wednesday and in regular iterations while the project goes
>> >> on. I hope everybody that won't attend next session will have their
>> >> comments sent to us by then.
>> >>
>> >> Then there are two detail pages that we have come up with so far and
>> >> these are not done until there is some form of consensus on them in
>> >> the community. Especially [2] is a page that we should all agree on
>> >> in the end. Right now it is just a working document that we will use
>> >> to implement our own way of working and later propose everybody will.
>> >> It describes what we think are the basics of cloudstack as opposed to
>> >> the extras that people should support on their own and will be
>> >> abandoned if nobody does.
>> >>
>> >> The third page [3] contains a set of requirements that we think will
>> >> make a gate for contributions that is workable for the community.
>> >>
>> >> please have a look and give us your feedback.
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Quality+and+Pr
>> >> o
>> >> cess+Improvement+Initiative [2]
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+bas
>> >> i
>> >> c+functionalities [3]
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Gate+requireme
>> >> n
>> >> ts
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (fyi: we are looking to implement a simple contribution workflow
>> >> based on github in combination with jenkins pull request builder for
>> >> now and are still considering what would have to be done to implement
>> >> something like gerrit.)
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >> --
>> >> Daan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>