Wikimedia Release Engineering Team/CI Futures WG/Meetings/2019-02-26

Kickstart meeting 2019-02-26Edit

On Google Hangouts Meet.

  • Brennen
  • Lars
  • Zeljko


The goal of this meeting is to get started, get organised, and have a plan for how to achieve the goal of the working group.

  • Are the participants OK participating in the work group?
    • Brennen: OK
    • Lars: OK.
    • Zeljko: OK
  • What is and isn't in scope of the WG?
    • Evaualute current CI tools (Zuul, Gearman, Jenkins), and possible replacements.
    • Code hosting, code review probably to stay with Gerrit.
      • Brennen: I think I'd like to see this up for discussion eventually, but probably out of scope here.
    • Ticketing probably to stay with Phabricator.
    • In-scope: everything after a change is pushed to Gerrit until software runs in production.
    • Given/assumed:
      • production will run services/sites on containers in Kubernetes
      • builds will ideally do that too
  • Suggestion for plan:
    • Gather requirements
    • Evaluate candidates
    • Discuss, come up with a recommendation
    • Write and publish (short) report
      • What did we consider? What are requirements?
      • Rationale for recommendation.
    • TODO: Lars to check with Greg how much time we should spend on this
  • This week we interview people privately to collect requirements and agree on evaluation method (spreadsheet? reports?).
    • Lars has already inteviewed Greg, Tyler, and asked Jeena about any CI related feedback from the developer interviews.
    • Interview with Antoine scheduled for Wednesday.
    • Anyone else in RelEng or otherwise?
    • Wiki page with results:
    • TODO: Z: req: debugging CI (when local works) is super-annoying, this should be made easier
    • TODO: Z: req: we need to store at much artifacts as possible, when a test fails, VM or container should be made available for debugging to the dev
  • Discuss current list of requirements and candidates.
    • Postpone this for a later meeting and offline discussions.
    • Z: Requirements list potentially a good use for voting.
  • TODO: Lars to make a weekly blog post with updates of the WG work, for publicity
  • TODO: Lars to ask publically or within WMF for suggestions for candidates
  • TODO: Ask for suggestions within our personal networks
  • Evaluation method? Once we have a list of requirements and a list of candidates, how do we evaluate them?
    • We should have a short list of very hard requirements
    • Serious candidates need a demo / description of the workflow
      • Probably sufficient to build a git repo - if it works with git, we're probably good
    • A huge spreadsheet?
    • Short one-page reports on each candidate?
      • Why is (or is not) each candidate an acceptable choice?
    • How do we divide the evaluation work?
      • Have at least two people look at each thing?
  • TODO: Lars to set up a new meeting for Thursday. One hour before the Docker-SIG meeting.
  • TODO: Lars to create a Super Hard Requirements section
  • TODO: Lars to move list to subpage or its own page

For the futureEdit

  • Ask Dan if he wants to join the WG as well.
  • Finish list of requirements
  • Divide candidates for evaluation
  • Add list of very hard requirements to Deployment pipeline page