Thanks for the quick feedback everyone. I've abandoned the patch series, although I did pull out one change that seemed to be a valid bugfix independent of the migrator work: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/607690/ On 1/10/19 9:15 AM, Herve Beraud wrote:
Make sense so +1
Le jeu. 10 janv. 2019 14:27, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com <mailto:doug@doughellmann.com>> a écrit :
"Nguyen Hung, Phuong" <phuongnh@vn.fujitsu.com <mailto:phuongnh@vn.fujitsu.com>> writes:
> Hi Ben, > >> I suggest that we either WIP or abandon the current >> patch series. > ... >> If you have any thoughts about this plan please let me know. Otherwise I >> will act on it sometime in the near-ish future. > > Thanks for your consideration. I am agree with you, please help me to abandon them because I am not privileged with those patches. > > Regards, > Phuong.
+1 for abandoning them, at least for now. As Ben points out, gerrit will still have copies.
Doug
> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Nemec [mailto:openstack@nemebean.com <mailto:openstack@nemebean.com>] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 6:12 AM > To: Herve Beraud; Nguyen, Hung Phuong > Cc: openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [oslo][migrator] RFE Configuration mapping tool for upgrade - coordinate teams > > > > On 12/20/18 4:41 AM, Herve Beraud wrote: >> >> >> Le jeu. 20 déc. 2018 à 09:26, Nguyen Hung, Phuong >> <phuongnh@vn.fujitsu.com <mailto:phuongnh@vn.fujitsu.com> <mailto:phuongnh@vn.fujitsu.com <mailto:phuongnh@vn.fujitsu.com>>> a écrit : >> >> Hi Ben, >> >> I am apology that in last month we do not have much time maintaining >> the code. >> >> > but if no one's going to use it then I'd rather cut our >> > losses than continue pouring time into it. >> >> I agree, we will wait for the community to decide the need for the >> feature. >> In the near future, we do not have ability to maintain the code. If >> anyone >> has interest to continue maintaining the patch, we will support with >> document, >> reviewing... in our possibility. >> >> >> I can help you to maintain the code if needed. >> >> Personaly I doesn't need this feature so I agree Ben and Doug point of view. >> >> We need to measure how many this feature is useful and if it make sense >> to support and maintain more code in the future related to this feature >> without any usages behind that. > > We discussed this again in the Oslo meeting this week, and to share with > the wider audience here's what I propose: > > Since the team that initially proposed the feature and that we expected > to help maintain it are no longer able to do so, and it's not clear to > the Oslo team that there is sufficient demand for a rather complex > feature like this, I suggest that we either WIP or abandon the current > patch series. Gerrit never forgets, so if at some point there are > contributors (new or old) who have a vested interest in the feature we > can always resurrect it. > > If you have any thoughts about this plan please let me know. Otherwise I > will act on it sometime in the near-ish future. > > In the meantime, if anyone is desperate for Oslo work to do here are a > few things that have been lingering on my todo list: > > * We have a unit test in oslo.utils (test_excutils) that is still using > mox. That needs to be migrated to mock. > * oslo.cookiecutter has a number of things that are out of date (doc > layout, lack of reno, coverage job). Since it's unlikely we've reached > peak Oslo library we should update that so there aren't a bunch of > post-creation changes needed like there were with oslo.upgradecheck (and > I'm guessing oslo.limit). > * The config validator still needs support for dynamic groups, if > oslo.config is your thing. > * There are 326 bugs open across Oslo projects. Help wanted. :-) > > Thanks. > > -Ben >
-- Doug