Open Stack

Hello all,

I am again proposing a change due to operations experience. I am
proposing a clean and simple cherry-pick to Ocata.

"it depends" works pretty bad as policy for accepting patches.

Now I really dont understand what is the issue with the Stable Policy
and this patch:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/539439/

This is a UX problem. Horizon is giving the wrong information to the user.

I got this answer:
Ocata is the second phase of stable branches [1]. Only critical bugfixes
and security patches are acceptable. I don't think it belongs to the
category.

But merging a patch that changes a log file in Nova back to Newton was
OKAY few weeks ago.

I will not be able to be in person at the PTG, but please talk about
this. People just give up upstreaming stuff like this.

thank you

Saverio


On 15.11.17 03:37, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 10:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> Let's focus our energy on the etherpad please
>>
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LTS-proposal
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Davanum Srinivas <davanum at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Saverio,
>>>
>>> Please see this :
>>> https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html for
>>> current policies.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Saverio Proto
>>> <saverio.proto at switch.ch> wrote:
>>>>> Which stable policy does that patch violate?  It's clearly a bug
>>>>> because the wrong information is being logged.  I suppose it goes
>>>>> against the string freeze rule? Except that we've stopped translating
>>>>> log messages so maybe we don't need to worry about that in this case,
>>>>> since it isn't an exception.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I also would like to understand more about stable policy
>>>> violations.
>>>> When I proposed such patches in the past for the release N-2 I have
>>>> always got the answer: it is not a security issue so it will not be
>>>> merged.
>>>>
>>>> This is a good example of how things have been working so far:
>>>>
>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/677eb1c4160c08cfce2900495741f0ea15f566fa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This cinder patch was merged in master. It was then merged in Mitaka.
>>>> But it was not merged in Liberty just because "only security fixes"
>>>> were
>>>> allowed at that point.
>>>>
>>>> You can read that in the comments:
>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306610/
>>>>
>>>> Is this kind of things going to change after the discussion in Sydney ?
>>>> The discussion is not enough ? what we need to get done then ?
>>>>
>>>> thank you
>>>>
>>>> Saverio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Heh, I'm reading this thread after approving all of those patches.
> 
> The answer as to whether it's appropriate or not, is "it depends".
> Depends on the patch, depends on the age of the branch, etc.
> 
> In this case, newton is in phase 3 so normally it's only security or
> critical fixes allowed, but in this case it's so trivial and so
> obviously wrong that I was OK with approving it just to get it in before
> we end of life the branch.
> 
> So, it depends. And because it depends, that's also why we don't
> automate the backport of every fix made on master. Because guess what,
> we also backport "fixes" that introduce regressions, and when you do
> that to n-1 (Pike at this point) then you still have a lot of time to
> detect that and fix it upstream, but regressing things on the oldest
> branch leaves very little time to (1) have it detected and (2) get it
> fixed before end of life.
> 


-- 
SWITCH
Saverio Proto, Peta Solutions
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 15, direct +41 44 268 1573
saverio.proto at switch.ch, http://www.switch.ch

http://www.switch.ch/stories