On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Samuel Just wrote: > It also doesn't seem like it would actually present a problem in any case. The reason we didn't do this before was because we wanted to revise tests independently of the thing being tested. But as John points out, specifying a test branch should accomplish that, at least for testing. It might be nice to preserve the ability specify an alternate repo with totally out-of-tree tests. Maybe that can be done with a simple reorg of the repo, like putting everything under qa/, so that tasks/ and suites/ don't appear at the top level (of ceph.git or ceph-qa-suite.git). sage > -Sam > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:31 AM, John Spray <jspray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> +1 : I agree it would be a good thing. > >>> > >>> The reason why it would help to merge ceph-qa-suite in ceph is because we have no proper methods or tools to work with interdependent repositories. The problem is not unique to Ceph: every Free Software developer end up bug fixing and adding features to dependencies (ceph-qa-suite in the case of Ceph but also jerasure, rocksdb, s3test etc.). It will take a long time to resolve that more general problem and I don't know about an effort in that direction. Do you ? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> On 13/04/2016 12:52, John Spray wrote: > >>>> Lately, we've instances where ceph.git and ceph-qa-suite.git got > >>>> slightly out of sync, as we were adding new stuff and interface > >>>> changes to ceph (especially in cephfs). > >>>> > >>>> We used to have two repos (ceph and teuthology), now we have three > >>>> (ceph, ceph-qa-suite and teuthology). Splitting tests out of > >>>> teuthology was a good thing, but maybe they should have gone into the > >>>> ceph tree instead of a new repo? The ceph-qa-suite branching seems to > >>>> pretty much mirror what we do with ceph, with master vs jewel etc. > >>>> > >>>> Historically we had a comparatively static set of workloads in the qa > >>>> suite (e.g. kernel-untar-build, fsstresss, pjd), which didn't change > >>>> much with ceph changes. But these days we're adding much more > >>>> detailed tests, so there's more effort to keep the two in sync. > >>>> > >>>> I would personally love to be able to have a single PR that contained > >>>> my code and the tests for it. What if after Jewel we pulled all of > >>>> ceph-qa-suite into the ceph repo? > >>>> > >>>> We could still enable folks running test changes without having to > >>>> rebuild ceph packages: the suite sha1 selected when running a > >>>> teuthology suite could still be different from that used for > >>>> installing ceph, it's just that it would fetch that sha1 from the ceph > >>>> repo instead of from a separate repo. > >> > >> We do have qa-suite tests that don't necessarily make a lot of sense > >> to have in ceph.git. Samba, kernel NFS, ganesha some day. That doesn't > >> mean we shouldn't merge them, but it popped into my head. > > > > Fair point. I think that because those other tasks depend in turn on > > the ceph tasks, we still ultimately benefit from having them in one > > place. > > > > It's also possible that in the long run things like the samba tests > > become a bit more "smart" in a way that's more tightly coupled to > > ceph, e.g. checking the resulting state inside ceph after doing things > > in the samba/ganesha layer, at which point we'd enjoy having them in > > the same place as the main body of test code. > > > > John > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > _______________________________________________ > Ceph-qa mailing list > Ceph-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-qa-ceph.com > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
