Ah, I didn't know about that, I'll have to try it. -Sam On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 13/04/2016 22:12, Josh Durgin wrote: >> On 04/13/2016 11:38 AM, Sage Weil 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). >> >> It'll also be quite helpful to specify an alternate repo (not just >> branch) for testing suite changes without pushing to the main ceph.git >> and triggering gitbuilder builds. > > We can keep the current --ceph-qa-suite-git-url argument for that. Or do you have something else in mind ? > >> Josh >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- 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
