On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). Should be doable, teuthology will in any case still need to know how to pull old-style separate-repo setups for when it is asked to schedule a suite against a <= jewel branch. Might be simplest to just enable teuthology to have a suite path prefix in addition to its repo address, so that you could tell it "get the suites from repo X in /foo/bar" and avoid hardcoding it. Then for older branches it would be "github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite path /" and for newer stuff it would be "github.com/ceph/ceph path /wherever" John > 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
