<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Jun 16, 2014 9:44 AM, "Ben Nemec" <<a href="mailto:openstack@nemebean.com">openstack@nemebean.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
> Hash: SHA1<br>
><br>
> On 06/16/2014 08:37 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:<br>
> > Sean Dague wrote:<br>
> >> Hacking 0.9 series was released pretty late for Juno. The entire<br>
> >> check queue was flooded this morning with requirements proposals<br>
> >> failing pep8 because of it (so at 6am EST we were waiting 1.5 hrs<br>
> >> for a check node).</p>
<p dir="ltr">This is a general issue with global requirements, the number of jobs we run and the number of available nodes. Let's solve the general case.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> >><br>
> >> The previous soft policy with pep8 updates was that we set a<br>
> >> pep8 version basically release week, and changes stopped being<br>
> >> done for style after first milestone.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I think in the spirit of that we should revert the hacking<br>
> >> requirements update back to the 0.8 series for Juno. We're past<br>
> >> milestone 1, so shouldn't be working on style only fixes at this<br>
> >> point.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Proposed review here - <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100231/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100231/</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> I also think in future hacking major releases need to happen<br>
> >> within one week of release, or not at all for that series.<br>
> ><br>
> > We may also have reached a size where changing style rules is just<br>
> > too costly, whatever the moment in the cycle. I think it's good<br>
> > that we have rules to enforce a minimum of common style, but the<br>
> > added value of those extra rules is limited, while their impact on<br>
> > the common gate grows as we add more projects.<br>
><br>
> A few thoughts:<br>
><br>
> 1) I disagree with the proposition that hacking updates can only<br>
> happen in the first week after release. I get that there needs to be<br>
> a cutoff, but I don't think one week is reasonable. Even if we<br>
> release in the first week, you're still going to be dealing with<br>
> hacking updates for the rest of the cycle as projects adopt the new<br>
> rules at their leisure. I don't like retroactively applying milestone<br>
> 1 as a cutoff either, although I could see making that the policy<br>
> going forward.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">++</p>
<p dir="ltr">> 2) Given that most of the changes involved in fixing the new failures<br>
> are trivial, I think we should encourage combining the fixes into one<br>
> commit. We _really_ don't need separate commits to fix H305 and H307.<br>
> This doesn't help much with the reviewer load, but it should reduce<br>
> the gate load somewhat. It violates the one change-one commit rule,<br>
> but "A foolish consistency..."<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">++</p>
<p dir="ltr">> 3) We should start requiring specs for all new hacking rules to make<br>
> sure we have consensus (I think oslo-specs is the place for this). 2<br>
> +2's doesn't really accomplish that. We also may need to raise the<br>
> bar for inclusion of new rules - while I agree with all of the new<br>
> ones added in hacking .9, I wonder if some of them are really necessary.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">I would rather just have more folks review hacking patches then add a specs repo. A specs repo is overkill, IMHO, hacking doesn't have that many patches per cycle. In general when adding a rule to hacking it has to already be in HACKING.rst and/or needs a ML post.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> 4) I don't think we're at a point where we should freeze hacking<br>
> completely, however. The import grouping and long line wrapping<br>
> checks in particular are things that reviewers have to enforce today,<br>
> and that has a significant, if less well-defined, cost too. If we're<br>
> really going to say those rules can't be enforced by hacking then we<br>
> need to remove them from our hacking guidelines and start the long<br>
> process of educating reviewers to stop requiring them. I'd rather<br>
> just deal with the pain of adding them to hacking one time and never<br>
> have to think about them again. I'm less convinced the other two that<br>
> were added in .9 are necessary, but in any case these are discussions<br>
> that should happen in spec reviews going forward.<br>
><br>
> 5) We may want to come up with some way to globally disable pep8<br>
> checks we don't want to enforce, since we don't have any control over<br>
> that but probably don't want to just stop updating pep8. That could<br>
> make the pain of these updates much less.<br>
><br>
> I could probably come up with a few more, but this is already too<br>
> wall-of-texty for my tastes. :-)<br>
><br>
> - -Ben<br>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
> Version: GnuPG v1<br>
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a href="http://www.enigmail.net/">http://www.enigmail.net/</a><br>
><br>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTnx7wAAoJEDehGd0Fy7uqoYAH/0KmxmR873Qn2Kti7LIEUNp4<br>
> 1FJaBOX09ItxkkvyNRpcsIQu4fWycm60CckSOLfB7rgxgIjgsVkiZ9puE6oCmj2o<br>
> Lhe5DhjYA2ROu9h8i0vmzYDnAKeu/WuRGtgyLSElUXeuiLpSrBcEA/03GpkCGiAP<br>
> 1muAkVgv2oxDDwsaLwL7MmFrlZ1MPTP97lAfsfHbwbsOM5YMuPrRz9PirgHPBtTV<br>
> 59UyofCGEBTtJKmJRLzRDZyDwTux5xrrc/cefer5GFLQH0ZbxOU1HHFESyc5wFVJ<br>
> tI/3nPlbFpqCUtgmnQc8k3lX3d2H1Qr9UfCvYlJFTN1TmPmHmK378ioi81HoAVo=<br>
> =tqtf<br>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</p>