[openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility
mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mon Jan 6 20:50:09 UTC 2014
On 1/3/2014 10:30 AM, David Kranz wrote:
> On 01/03/2014 08:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Tim Bell wrote:
>>> Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more
>>> appropriate for the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more
>>> when someone proposes a change they suspect could have an operations
>>> impact, they could highlight this as being one for particular focus.
>>> How about an OpsImpact tag ?
>> I think such a tag would help. That would encourage ops to start looking
>> more regularly into proposed changes by highlighting the few reviews
>> that are most likely to need their expertise.
>> We could have that tag post reviews to the -operators ML (in the same
>> way SecurityImpact posts to the -security ML), which would additionally
>> reinforce the need for this list as a separate list from the openstack
>> general list.
> While this would be an improvement over the current situation, IMO we
> are focused a bit too much here on "operators" vs others. I think we
> need clearer guidelines on what an "incompatible change" is, and how to
> balance "change it to something better" with "don't cause users upgrade
> pain". There was a similar issue with API changes a while back and
> providing the api stability guidelines really helped people understand
> the issue better. Of course, similar to what Sean talked about, having
> API tests in tempest that blocked incompatible api changes was probably
> even more important.
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
There is discussion in this thread about "wouldn't it be nice to have a
tag on commits for changes that impact upgrades?". There is.
Here is an example of a patch going through the gate now with UpgradeImpact:
More information about the OpenStack-dev