Open Stack

Chris Behrens wrote:
> But leaving aside whether I like it or dislike it, what really bothers me is that there was discussion about moving things to github.  And, I was 'ok' with that decision to do so despite preferring bzr and LP.  My 'ok' was based on knowing how git, github pull requests, reviews, and so forth work.  Now I feel like we're moving things to something to which I (and the community) never agreed.   I never saw any discussion about Gerrit on the mailing list as far as "is everyone cool with this?"  The first mention of it that I can find was July 18th regarding moving the CI repos.  Doesn't seem like we were given much of an option.  That really irks me.  Above you say "that has been decided will be used for the core OpenStack projects".  So, I have to ask:  'Who decided?'.  I must have missed something.

The PPB voted on that, mostly based on the feedback from the projects
that already migrated to it. Apparently the benefits of Gerrit (and the
3-month-long process that led the team working on that to prefer that
solution) were not communicated enough outside of the circles that
followed the issue closely.

> And I want to be clear that I'm not meaning to put down anyone's efforts here.  I'm positive a lot of hard work was put into the transition, and I do appreciate it.

Yes, rather than focusing on the communication issues or the bad timing
of the complaint, I hope we can concentrate on (1) getting a picture of
all the benefits of using Gerrit for code review (and running our own
code for that), and (2) having a list of the issues with Gerrit that
Monty and Jim can try to mitigate.

So far, the main complaint I hear is that it's different: different from
a pure GitHub workflow, and different from what Nova devs are used to
currently (LP). Familiarity is a very valid concern -- but my
understanding is that it's outweighed by (1). So if we can explain (1)
and mitigate (2), we may go somewhere.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack