<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Russell Bryant <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:russell@russellbryant.net" target="_blank">russell@russellbryant.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mjordan@digium.com" target="_blank">mjordan@digium.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>"And there was much rejoicing"<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>\o/</div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div></div>But seriously, we all know that a lot of people have wanted to move to Git for some time. For the record, everyone at Digium has wanted to move the project to Git for some time. I swore to myself that we wouldn't do another Standard release on Subversion - after we spent at least six weeks mucking around with merge conflicts during Asterisk 12 - and with Asterisk 14 looming ever closer, the time is now to start getting something done on this.<br><br></div>So!<br><br></div>To that end, a page on the wiki has been made with some initial thoughts:<br><br><a href="https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Git+Migration" target="_blank">https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Git+Migration</a><br><br></div>To summarize:<br></div> * A comparison of management platforms has been done. Barring a giant catastrophe or some insane limitation, we're going to go simple here and stick with gitolite. Reasoning is on the wiki page.<br></div> * The first thing to migrate is _not_ the Asterisk project, but the Asterisk Test Suite. That will allow us (or force us) to deal with some of the tooling and process issues, which will make it easier to tackle Asterisk.<br><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br></div><div>I'm sure there are a lot of opinions about all of this, and if you have thoughts on technical or process hurdles we may be running into, I'd love to hear it. Just remember that like many other things in life and development, there's a lot of ways to manage your source code. You may really, really, _REALLY_ like the way Project X does it, and you may think that the way we are proposing it is clearly inferior. That's great, you may be right. But in the interest of this not dragging on for another 5 years, I'd like to keep any discussions focussed on getting things done while not shooting ourselves in our virtual feet.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>So, I realize this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what you just said, but I wanted to offer some comments on the infrastructure. :-) I'm really not deeply invested in what is chosen. My interest here is just to provide an overview of another option in the interest of exploring options.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So my "no bike-shedding please" innuendo was definitely not meant to cut off all conversation. This is a pretty important move, and whatever we choose to go to we're going to live with for at least some time - I certainly hope we don't change tools out every other year.<br><br>So, to set what I hope are a few guidelines:<br>(1) I know this is a subject with a lot of opinions, and coming to a concurrence on something that is opinion based is tough. Voice opinions after thinking, "would I be willing to spend time working on this"?<br>(2) This is a project that can easily suck several developers for a long time if the scope of it expands substantially. The scope should hopefully be kept as tight as possible, as we will have a lot of re-tooling to do once the git move occurs (all CI, code review, releasing, etc.)<br></div><div>(3) The Asterisk project has several hard requirements, a few softer ones, that have to be met:<br></div><div> * Code submitted has to be assigned to a CLA. We have to verify that people proposing patches have acknowledged that they were licensed to submit said patch in some fashion.<br></div><div> * Issue tracking has to be done in JIRA (large investment, huge cost in moving to anything else right now).<br></div><div> * Code must be reviewed.<br></div><div> * Any substitute for Review Board, Bamboo, or other existing tools should have obvious benefits over the existing tools.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>For the last few years, most of my time has been going into OpenStack [1]. We use git and I have become a big fan of our workflow and infrastructure. It's all open source and reusable.</div><div><br></div><div>From a high level, all patches go to a code review system. *Every* patch must be peer reviewed (usually by 2 people, but that's a policy decision). *Every* patch must also pass tests. Once a patch passes both tests and peer review, it is automatically merged into the repository.</div><div><br></div><div>I *love* that workflow for several reasons. If it's appealing, it's probably much easier to do it now while you're doing a big switch anyway. If you're not sold, I'm certainly not hurt. Like I said, I just wanted to offer info. The current plan will be less up front setup for sure.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am a huge fan of this.<br><br></div><div>We've been moving (slowly but surely) towards this model. Code is reviewed more often than not, and with Crowd integration, anyone can propose a patch. Tests are written for the vast majority of new work. We *do* still have a problem with bouncing tests - and while Bamboo may point the finger more at 12+ currently (due to a current spat with native RTP bridges, direct media, and transfers) - the bouncing is actually more pernicious in many ways with the 1.8/11 branches. We'd have to solve that problem if we move to this model.<br><br>I don't consider that a bad thing at all.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>If you're a hands on kind of person, browse <a href="http://review.openstack.org/" target="_blank">http://review.openstack.org/</a> for open code reviews. You can also see patches going through CI pipelines on <a href="http://status.openstack.org/zuul//" target="_blank">http://status.openstack.org/zuul//</a></div><div><br></div><div>The major tools involved are:</div><div><br></div><div> - gerrit for code review and repository management [2][3]</div><div> - jenkins for CI [4]</div><div> - Zuul, A CI job scheduler that automates running things in response to events on gerrit. [5]</div><div> - CGit, repo hosting [6][7]</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This would replace Review Board and Bamboo as well, so we'll need to consider the effort involved with that.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>Everything we use is managed via puppet and all of the configuration is in git. It's designed to be reusable. The folks that run it have documented how to re-use it [8] and are quite friendly. You can find them in #openstack-infra on freenode.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Awesome. I'll do that - in particular, I'm interested what is involved in the recurring maintenance of gerrit/Jenkins/Zuul.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>[1] <a href="http://www.openstack.org" target="_blank">http://www.openstack.org</a></div><div>[2] <a href="https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/</a></div><div>[3] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/</a></div><div>[4] <a href="http://jenkins-ci.org/" target="_blank">http://jenkins-ci.org/</a></div><div>[5] <a href="http://ci.openstack.org/zuul.html" target="_blank">http://ci.openstack.org/zuul.html</a></div><div>[6] <a href="http://ci.openstack.org/git.html" target="_blank">http://ci.openstack.org/git.html</a></div><div>[7] <a href="http://git.openstack.org" target="_blank">http://git.openstack.org</a></div><div>[8] <a href="http://ci.openstack.org/running-your-own.html" target="_blank">http://ci.openstack.org/running-your-own.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I'll also try to answer the fields of the comparison chart on the wiki page:</div><div><br></div><div>-- Web View</div><div><br></div><div>Yes.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Project Management</div><div><br></div><div>This would replace existing usage of bamboo and reviewboard. It does not include issue tracking. Keeping that is would be fine.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Protected Branches</div><div><br></div><div>Gerrit supports permissions on a per branch basis.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Rewriting history</div><div><br></div><div>Not sure the intent here ... wanting to make that can be avoided?</div><div><br></div><div>In this system, the merges are automated so you can't accidentally do a bad push. An admin can force reset a repo if needed, of course.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I like that 'automated' prevents bad pushes, but I can see how that would be the case. If anything, the fact that you can assign people into roles, with permissions per roles, fits fairly closely with the existing model that we have already.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>-- Team repos</div><div><br></div><div>I'd recommend just using your own account on github or whatever.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Git hooks</div><div><br></div><div>For what, exactly? It's probably easier to discuss the problem that needs to be solved.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In general, there are a few use cases for either git hooks or web hooks (or something else, such as the Gerrit event stream):<br></div><div>(1) Auto-close issues in JIRA<br></div><div>(2) Auto-close reviews in Review Board (but clearly not an issue in this case)<br></div><div>(3) Prevent pushes from private branches going to public branches. This would have to be done a pre-hook in some fashion.<br><br></div><div>I think there are various ways to achieve all three of these, although admittedly the 'private branch' one is the most tricky and annoying.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>-- Web hooks</div><div><br></div><div>Again, it's probably worth discussing the use case. Gerrit has an event stream. That event stream includes merges. Tools to do things in responses to merges (which could be running a web hook) listen and react.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>-- Performance</div><div><br></div><div>Yes. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>There's lots of stats I could dig up, but as one example, I track code review stats for a subset of projects on <a href="http://review.openstack.org" target="_blank">review.openstack.org</a> In the last year, for that subset, there have been 266,127 code reviews done (avg > 700 per day). That gives some sense of scale. From a quick glance at the CI status page (<a href="http://status.openstack.org/zuul/" target="_blank">http://status.openstack.org/zuul/</a>), it has been launching about 500-600 jobs per hour today.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Process Recommendation</div><div><br></div><div>I discussed this a good bit above, but I'm happy to answer questions.</div><span class="HOEnZb"></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wiki page updated!<br><br></div><div>You make a lot of good points, and I think it's worth honestly exploring this option. It does look like it would be more work, but as you pointed out, now is the time to do it - and it may not be substantially more than what we're already going to have to do. We'll have to take a deeper look at Gerrit and find out.<br><br>Thanks for weighing in on this!<br><br></div><div>Matt<br></div></div><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div>Matthew Jordan<br></div><div>Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager</div><div>445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA</div><div>Check us out at: <a href="http://digium.com" target="_blank">http://digium.com</a> & <a href="http://asterisk.org" target="_blank">http://asterisk.org</a></div></div>
</div></div>