[Gluster-Maintainers] RFC: Gluster.Next: Where and how DHT2 work/code would be hosted

Shyam srangana at redhat.com
Thu Oct 8 18:05:08 UTC 2015


On checking yesterday's gluster meeting AIs and (later) reading the 
minutes, for DHT2 here is what I gather and propose to do for $SUBJECT. 
Feel free to add/negate any plans.

(This can also be discussed at [2])

1) Create a directory under the glusterfs master branch as follows,

See patch request at [2]

All code, design documents (work products in general) would go into this 

2) Code that compiles and does not cause CI failures could *potentially* 
be merged with very few DHT2 dev folks assent.

There would possibly be no CI integration till we get something working, 
so merges would be based on compile passing initially. Soon there would 
be an attempt at getting unit testing integrated, so that code being 
submitted is not abysmally horrendous

3) Common framework code changes (if any) would be presented as a 
separate commit request

4) (Big problem) DHT2 requires glusterd changes to create a volume as 
DHT2 and not DHT, this would be maintained as a .patch in the dht2 
directory as above. This is so that people can play with DHT2 volumes if 
interested. Integration of this piece either comes with glusterd 2.0 or 
based on time lines of other events, in the current version of glusterd.
(if you are interested in seeing the current version of this patch, go 
here [1])

If there is some key disagreement on certain points like (2) above, then 
we would need to bring in DHT2 code in parts so that it makes sense. 
This is fine too, just that we would have 2 repos till we reach a point 
of maturity in development.

*Some issues with the approach:*
A) We need to ensure we do not ship xlators compiled from the 
experimental directory

B) We need to possibly add a buddy maintainer for experimental 
translator owners, who can help with the process of merging their changes.

C) I am not sure how this helps the review process, as initially xlator 
development can be iffy and so we do not expect reviews to be stringent. 
Later when we want to move this out of the experimental category, how do 
we review the same now, and what actions do we take to ensure quality? 
Won't we have the same bulk code review issue?

Shameless plug: For quality and if an xlator plays well with other parts 
of gluster the distaf framework of testing against possible graphs and 
access protocols can be of immense help.


[2] http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12321/1

More information about the maintainers mailing list