On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Tim Ski <marshyski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I said I would help with this but someone else took the lead. What's the 411 > haha??? Where did you say so? I haven't seen any such message and neither did the cloud list's archive. Anyway, what exactly would you like to help with? > On Apr 4, 2014 12:34 AM, "Sandro "red" Mathys" <red@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vitty@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > "Sandro \"red\" Mathys" <red@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> >> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vitty@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> So we have the RedHatQE tests, Taskotron and CentOS's CI. Can anyone >> >>>> of the people involved (at the Red Hat side, I guess) well me why we >> >>>> have 3 systems for 1 task? >> >>> >> >>> (my personal opinion) I think we rather have plenty of tasks, not >> >>> one. Afaict (after 5 min. of reading Taskotron's development plan >> >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tflink/taskotron_development_plan) >> >>> Taskotron is designed to replace AutoQA in the first place. >> >>> RHEL's Cloud Image Validation was developed several years ago when the >> >>> following task was on the table: we have many AWS regions, many >> >>> images, >> >>> different architectures, we need to try different hardware types and >> >>> AWS-specific features (e.g. attach EBS on the fly or test AWS-specific >> >>> content delivery) and finally we need to aggregate the result. >> >>> Existing >> >>> test infrastructure was built around Beaker which is not that well >> >>> suited for the job and creating a separate tool was considered a >> >>> reasonable trade-off. >> >> >> >> Well, "one" task as in "do cloud image QA". >> >> >> >> Thanks, for sharing that insights, really helpful to help my >> >> understanding. So, do you currently test EC2 only? (Not saying that's >> >> necessarily bad / too little). >> > >> > Now it is EC2-only but Google's ComputeEngine was on the horizon. >> > >> >> >> >> Now, we do have the RHQE stuff in place and it's already used for >> >> testing Fedora images...that's good. Is that fully automated? Or to >> >> what extend? >> > >> > You run the tool with the data (AMI IDs, region, arch) and get the >> > result in a meanwhile. It can be fully-automated once we have this data >> > announced via fedmsg or in any other automated way (now I just read >> > mailing list and if there are any images announced by Dennis I run the >> > tool). >> > >> >> >> >>>> When I took ownership of this "external >> >>>> need" (for the Fedora cloud product) I was under the impression we >> >>>> only just (are going to) have Taskotron and everyone knows it's THE >> >>>> way to go. >> >>> >> >>> I personally love collaboration. It would be awesome if we could avoid >> >>> spreading resources on '3 systems for 1 task'. I definitely want to >> >>> know >> >>> more about Taskotron and its movement towards cloud image testing. >> >> >> >> That's why I was a bit confused to find there's actually 3 systems. >> >> Collaboration is certainly great, but that's not how it's done so >> >> let's try to improve on this. >> >> >> >> So, would you recommend to keep using your tools or rather go with >> >> Taskotron? Or do we do some things in one and others in the other? Or >> >> do we try to fully implement your tests in Taskotron and drop doing >> >> the tests with your tools? >> >> >> > >> > Well, it depends on what's our future plan. IMHO once we have images >> > announced via fedmsg we can have all basic things covered by the >> > existing >> > tool (and I'm definitely in for integration and support process for the >> > tool) and it won't take us long to set everything up. With regards to >> > Taskotron I want to know more on how this 'cloud integration' is planned >> > as (if I'm not mistaken) there's no code written yet. If merging here >> > seems reasonable then I'm in. I'll try reaching out to Tim & others on >> > fedora-qa-devel list. >> >> So, what's the status here? Tim's responses to this thread show no >> cloud integration code has been written yet and he's open to have >> valid integrated in Taskotron, particularly if helping hands do most >> of the work so he can keep focusing on other open tasks. Could you >> work on that, Vitaly? >> >> >> Also, Karanbir, what's your (i.e. CentOS's) story? You say you already >> >> have a CI system running but shared little other information. What CI >> >> system? Did you already implement image tests? What kind of >> >> collaboration would you suggest here? >> _______________________________________________ >> cloud mailing list >> cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud >> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > > > _______________________________________________ > cloud mailing list > cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
