[openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno
sean at dague.net
Fri Dec 18 18:45:55 UTC 2015
On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
>> theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be
>> part of this spec -
> Lana talked with John Garbutt about this and announced this also in
> several 'What's up' newsletters like
>> First, a heads up would be good. Nova burns a lot of nodes (i.e. has a
>> lot of patch volume), so this just decreased everyone's CI capacity
> I understand this reasoning and Joshua worked on a superior solution,
>> Secondly, this all seems like the wrong direction. We've got reno now,
>> which is extremely useful for documenting significant changes in the
>> code base that need to be reflected up. We've dropped UpgradeImpact for
>> an upgrade comment in reno, which is *so* much better.
>> It seems like using reno instead of commit message tags would be much
>> better for everyone here.
> The goal of DocImpact is to notify the Documentation team about changes
> - currently done via bugs in launchpad so that manuals can be easily
> updated. How would this tracking work with docimpact?
Because the current concern seems to be that naked DocImpact tag leaves
people guessing what is important. And I understand that. There is a
whole job now to just check that DocImpact containts a reason after it.
We now have a very detailed system in reno to describe changes that will
impact people using the code. It lets you do that with the commit and
provide an arbitrarily large amount of content in it describing what and
why you think that's important to reflect up.
I think it effectively deprecates all *Impact flags. Now we have a place
for that payload.
More information about the OpenStack-dev