#opnfv-meeting: Weekly Technical Discussion

Meeting started by bh526r at 13:00:19 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

  1. Roll Call (bh526r, 13:00:40)
    1. Morgan Richomme (morgan_orange, 13:00:52)
    2. Bin Hu (bh526r, 13:00:55)
    3. Fatih Degirmenci (fdegir, 13:01:14)
    4. Jack Morgan (jmorgan1, 13:01:35)
    5. Uli (uli-k, 13:01:40)
    6. David McBride (dmcbride, 13:01:54)

  2. CD-Friendly Release Model based on XCI (bh526r, 13:03:46)
    1. https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/INF/Release+Process+Proposal (bh526r, 13:04:02)
    2. This page is subject to change. We are experimenting it by Oct 15. After Oct 15, this page will be updated based on learning (bh526r, 13:04:58)
    3. https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=12390152 (bh526r, 13:05:03)
    4. We will focus on discussing this (bh526r, 13:05:46)
    5. Fatih introduced that Cross Community CI (XCI) aims to bring Continuous Delivery to OPNFV in order to increase the speed and agility, provide fast and tailored feedback, make it possible to shorten the time it takes for a feature/component to be part of an OPNFV scenario, ensure the composed platform always works, and get the latest and working version of platform in the hands of our users as frequently as (bh526r, 13:10:20)
    6. Bryan indicates that this XCI model is extremely valuable for end users, and key differentiator for OPNFV (bh526r, 13:11:10)
    7. Then Fatih reviewed current OPNFV release model and XCI (bh526r, 13:11:39)
    8. And current release model makes it challenging to support CD-based development XCI (bh526r, 13:12:47)
    9. So a lighter model is needed (bh526r, 13:12:59)
    10. The proposal is that current model stays the same and renames to "stable track" (bh526r, 13:13:39)
    11. The new CD&XCI model is in parallel, "latest track" (bh526r, 13:14:13)
    12. The open question is that we may still need branch in short term (depending on the need of a project), or just patch master branch (bh526r, 13:21:08)
    13. David McBride indicated that based on his observation, it works well for a more mature project (bh526r, 13:21:46)
    14. For a brand new project, or less mature project, "stable track" works better (bh526r, 13:22:24)
    15. Fatih suggest that we probably let project to choose which model to work under. (bh526r, 13:22:49)
    16. If one model doesn't work for them, they can always change in next release (bh526r, 13:23:36)
    17. Bryan indicated that it is also subject to upstreams. (bh526r, 13:24:07)
    18. Discussion focused on whether or not carrying a patch of upstream in OPNFV (bh526r, 13:27:48)
    19. Dave Neary, David McBride and Bryan Sullivan gave some examples (bh526r, 13:28:07)
    20. Then we discussed versioning scheme. One is common version (stable track), the other is project-dependent version (latest track). Then we need a specific test framework version for XCI version which should be repeatable and reproducible on later days (bh526r, 13:35:33)
    21. Dave Neary shared experience from APEX project (bh526r, 13:36:04)
    22. Fatih clarified that tags on the diagram are for one single project (bh526r, 13:41:21)
    23. David McBride indicated that the critical factor is the resource. (bh526r, 13:42:14)
    24. David McBride asked if we should continue to discuss next week, and challenge is PTG next week (bh526r, 14:00:02)
    25. https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-September/017756.html (fdegir, 14:01:37)


Meeting ended at 14:02:23 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)


People present (lines said)

  1. bh526r (30)
  2. collabot (3)
  3. fdegir (2)
  4. uli-k (2)
  5. jmorgan1 (2)
  6. morgan_orange (1)
  7. dmcbride (1)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.