[ovirt-devel] Jenkins jobs ownership

Fri Feb 10 11:21:44 UTC 2017

> Maybe I'm not seeing something here.

What you are not seeing is that this is partially manual and spread
out across multiple repositories.

I do not want to add Jenkins build anywhere. I want to tell Jenkins
what it should build to get the latest release (hash/tag) and nightly
(branch) and be done with it. You can then rebuild it as often as you
want, change supported distributions or change configuration without
me having to touch it, because you have the exact git hash.

The same with source code release. The git hash / tag also gives tells
you what commit you should use for the tarball.

In a short version, I want to deliver the source code and the spec (+
automation for the CI) and leave Jenkins games to you.

Martin

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Martin Sivak <msivak at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think you already can do that.
>> > When you want to build for a release you can create automation/mom.spec
>> > and change automaton/build-artifacts.sh
>>
>> But that is not what I am after. I want to be able to say: Use this
>> git hash from this repository for 4.1 and 4.0 for any upcoming release
>> until I say otherwise (without having to use some special tag).
>>
>> This is not about build procedure, but about release management. The
>> build procedure can be then part of the automation as you say, but I
>> won't be the one executing it, Jenkins will do that for me any time
>> you decide to do a compose.
>
>
> Not sure to follow.
> jenkins will execute the build right after you'll merge the change.
> after that, you can add the jenkins build to ovirt-<release>.conf
> and it will be published for that release.
> All following releases will keep that version until you add it to another
> ovirt-<new-release>.conf, since the files are incremental.
>
> The only time this may fail is between major releases like 4.0 -> 4.1 or 4.1
> -> 4.2
> when beta composes are done by taking latest snapshots in
> ovirt-<betarelease>.conf
> which I usually ask to review before merging like I did for 4.1:
> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/67645/
>
> Maybe I'm not seeing something here.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Martin Sivak <msivak at redhat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am using copr for building mom for a single reason. We have no
>> >> distgit equivalent where I would be able to mark an arbitrary git hash
>> >> as a release (using my tag and branch structure) and so copr gives me
>> >> the package release experience I want. Otherwise Jenkins would be fine
>> >> with me.
>> >>
>> >> If we are getting closer to something like that then great and I will
>> >> use it when it is ready.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think you already can do that.
>> > When you want to build for a release you can create automation/mom.spec
>> > and change automaton/build-artifacts.sh
>> > to just:
>> > spectool -g automation/mom.spec
>> > rpmbuild \
>> >     -ba \
>> >     --define="_sourcedir ${PWD}" \
>> >     --define="_srcrpmdir ${PWD}" \
>> >     --define="_rpmdir ${PWD}" \
>> >     automation/mom.spec
>> >
>> > instead of
>> >
>> > ./autogen.sh
>> > ./configure --prefix=/usr
>> > make dist
>> > rpmbuild -ta *.tar.gz
>> >
>> > when jenkins will run it will build like in copr.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo at redhat.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer at redhat.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Martin Sivak <msivak at redhat.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> A repo where I do not have commit rights means I can't take full
>> >> >> >> responsibility.
>> >> >> >> A repo that is not atomically synchronized with my sources means
>> >> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> can't take full responsibility.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Having said that, I would be perfectly fine with a single
>> >> >> > repository
>> >> >> > that tracks the release configuration, but only if it also held
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > git repository link and hash/branch name that is supposed to be
>> >> >> > released. It would be in some way a "distgit repo". Something like
>> >> >> > Sandro has for builds.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > [ovirt-4.0.x-ci]
>> >> >> > git://gerrit.ovirt.org/project.git#ovirt-4.0.x
>> >> >> > git://gerrit.ovirt.org/project2.git#v4.0.x
>> >> >> > git://github.com/Me/repo#master
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > [ovirt-4.0.6]
>> >> >> > git://gerrit.ovirt.org/project.git#ovirt-4.0.6
>> >> >> > git://gerrit.ovirt.org/project2.git#v4.0.6
>> >> >> > http://github.com/Me/repo/releases/x.y.z.zip
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Any release would then be reviewed by the CI team and that would
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > fine for me. It would allow any branch name or versioning
>> >> >> > convention
>> >> >> > and would not pollute the sources. It would also be gerrit
>> >> >> > agnostic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well said!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> May pain points with jenkins project:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - No documentation
>> >> >> - The format is not stable, each time you edit the format is
>> >> >> different
>> >> >> - No way to test changes, only infra guys can test changes,
>> >> >> sometimes
>> >> >>   even infra guys cannot test changes and they simply merge them
>> >> >>   for testing
>> >> >> - The project format is full of duplication
>> >> >> - No commit right, cannot be responsible for something I cannot
>> >> >> change
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Compare with travis:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Everting defined in *my* project in .travis.yml
>> >> >> - Configuration format is well documented
>> >> >>   https://docs.travis-ci.com/
>> >> >> - Configuration format is well designed, can do lot of work with
>> >> >> very
>> >> >>   little configuration
>> >> >>   For example - this yaml define matrix of 3 builds:
>> >> >>   https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/.travis.yml
>> >> >> - Easy to test changes before merging (push to your fork on github)
>> >> >> - Very nice web ui, e.g.
>> >> >>   https://travis-ci.org/oVirt/vdsm/builds/198571421
>> >> >>   https://travis-ci.org/oVirt/vdsm/jobs/198571422
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I've no strong feelings on this subject. I personally don't know
>> >> > travis
>> >> > so I
>> >> > can't compare it to anything else.
>> >> > I'm a jenkins Standard-CI user and I tend to be happy with what we
>> >> > have.
>> >> > That said, despite I would prefer all ovirt projects to be aligned
>> >> > with
>> >> > the
>> >> > same workflow, I'm perfectly fine with whatever CI testing / building
>> >> > system
>> >> > is implemented or used for each project provided that:
>> >> > - it works
>> >> > - it produces rpms which can be added to ovirt-system-test for
>> >> > functional
>> >> > testing
>> >> > - it produces source archives which can be published on release
>> >> > - it produces rpms which can be installed on release for all
>> >> > supported
>> >> > platforms and arches.
>> >> > - it doesn't require creative ways to get artifacts to be released
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nir
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Martin
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Martin Sivak <msivak at redhat.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> The fact that this is specified in the 'jenkins' repo **does not
>> >> >> >>> place
>> >> >> >>> this outside the maintainers` responsibility**.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> A repo where I do not have commit rights means I can't take full
>> >> >> >> responsibility.
>> >> >> >> A repo that is not atomically synchronized with my sources means
>> >> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> can't take full responsibility.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> We actually have an initiative to move this information to the
>> >> >> >>> project
>> >> >> >>> repos. I've started with asking on devel list about how to
>> >> >> >>> specify
>> >> >> >>> this as part of Standard-CI [1]. But have received little
>> >> >> >>> topical
>> >> >> >>> response so far.
>> >> >> >>> [1]:
>> >> >> >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2017-January/029161.html
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You've got enough responses already to propose a different schema
>> >> >> >> than
>> >> >> >> fixed branch names. Just give us a config file. Seriously, stop
>> >> >> >> reinventing the wheel and take a look at how others are doing it
>> >> >> >> (distgit, travis, tito, ...).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Martin
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> --
>> >> >> >>> Barak Korren
>> >> >> >>> bkorren at redhat.com
>> >> >> >>> RHCE, RHCi, RHV-DevOps Team
>> >> >> >>> https://ifireball.wordpress.com/
>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>> Devel mailing list
>> >> >> >>> Devel at ovirt.org
>> >> >> >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > Devel mailing list
>> >> >> > Devel at ovirt.org
>> >> >> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Devel mailing list
>> >> >> Devel at ovirt.org
>> >> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Sandro Bonazzola
>> >> > Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
>> >> > collaboration.
>> >> > See how it works at redhat.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sandro Bonazzola
>> > Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
>> > collaboration.
>> > See how it works at redhat.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sandro Bonazzola
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at redhat.com