Open Stack

On 04/09/2016 02:05 AM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> I have another idea for a way forward that doesn't require consensus
> across teams. Now that we have the governance in place for debian
> packaging, let's move the debian install guide to a new repo that can go
> under the packaging project, and you can create and maintain build jobs
> for the debian install guide.

So, Debian is being kicked away by actions from Matthew, and your reply
to my complain about it is to show the way out? Really?

Having a separate guide for Debian, re-written from scratch, is *not*
the solution.

> Monty's the PTL for packaging-rpm. [2] Can you envision a
> debian-install-guide repo within the packaging-rpm team, with both a
> review team and bug triaging only for that repo? You'll need to work on
> the gate and build jobs as well, but I truly believe we have the systems
> in place to enable this.

That's exactly the type of duplicate work which we should try to avoid.

> And with the direction of the individual
> projects taking responsibility for their install guides, we have a
> framework we're moving towards and this case seems to fit the new
> framework. [3]

I really don't see how it fits. Quite the opposite: if Debian is kicked
away from the install-guide, individual projects will not write
conditionals for it, leading to more work to be done for anyone trying
to maintain a separated install-guide for Debian. Or am I missing
something here?

Also, how do you propose to get projects like Congress, Senlin or Murano
documented in the install-guide, when only Debian has packages available
for them (and Ubuntu only syncs them, so what should be documented there
is the Debian way)?

On 04/09/2016 06:33 AM, Lana Brindley wrote:
> Thomas and Matt, this has been an ongoing feud since well before I
> was around, and while I understand we're not there yet, every release
> brings us so much closer to an Install Guide solution that will work
> for everyone.

Every of the last 3 releases are making me even more mad about the doc
people, with each time, actions on Matthew's side to drive Debian out of
the install-guide which I have to fight:
- The first time was Kilo, where the RST conversion happened, and I was
told it was forbidden to write in the docs, and I couldn't repair the
Debian install-guide.
- Then in Liberty, it was decided to remove Debian *AND* RedHat just
right before the release.
- Now, just after Mitaka, a patch is proposed to get Debian out.

It's not getting any better, it's getting worse. Now the Debian guide
isn't even published (not even talking about the link to it on
docs.openstack.org). Could you please get this restored ASAP?

> Not just to get a Debian Install Guide published

Well, start by re-activating the generation of the Debian install-guide,
so that at least, once can see the actual result. I really don't
understand why it's been removed from the pool of generated docs. I
don't understand why the link to it has been removed too. OF COURSE,
this leads to even less chance for contributions.

But that's not the main issue. The biggest problem that there is, is
that to this date, I still don't have any idea what's wrong with the
Debian guide. Matthew has been producing opinions about the way Debian
handle things, like, why using MySQL and not MariaDB, versions of
RabbitMQ, use of guest account in Rabbit, etc., rather than telling what
should be done to fix the guide. As a result, there's no clear action
plan that can be drawn in order to bring the fixes, and make the doc
team satisfied about the Debian install-guide. To say it in a shorter
way: maybe he doesn't realize it himself, but Matthew has a strong
tendency to lean towards destructive complains, instead of constructive
criticism.

We have 2 alternatives
1/ either let me do my work, and accept the Debian install-guide the way
it is, or
2/ provide *clear* guidance and directions (without destructive
complains) so that one can improve the debian-guide in a way that makes
the team satisfied.

I'd very much prefer option 2/ than 1/. But what cannot happen is:

3/ complain about the global shape of the Debian install-guide, not tell
why it is bad, and get it removed.

4/ give opinions about how the packages are working in Debian and use
that as points of argumentation for the removal of Debian from the
install-guide: that's not helpful to get the install-guide better, and
not helping me to get to a stage where everyone (but Matthew?) is happy.

> This conversation, and the many other conversations we have had on
> this topic over the past few months will again form a large part of
> the agenda at the design summit, and I look forward to being able to
> hash this out in more detail then.

On every design summit, I'd like to get this discussion happen with the
doc people, though never, it was possible to have it even started. If
you really care, please define a clear schedule for it which doesn't
conflict with the other sessions I'll be attending.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)