Open Stack

On 11/15/2013 12:57 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 06:57 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
>> (Apologies, this started on the TC list, and really should have started
>> on -dev, correctly posting here now for open discussion)
>>
>> There were a few chats at summit about this, mostly on the infra /
>> devstack / qa side of the house. Consider the following a straw man to
>> explain the current state of the world, and what I'd like to see change here
>> I call out projects by name here, not to
>> make fun of them, but that I think concrete examples bring the point
>> home much more than abstract arguments (at least for me).
>>
>> This is looking at raising the bar quite a bit along the way. However,
>> as someone that spends a lot of time trying to keep the whole ball of
>> wax holding together, and is spending a lot of time retroactively trying
>> to get projects into our integrated gate (and huge pain to everyone, as
>> their gate commits get bounced by racey projects), I think we really
>> need to up this bar if we want a 20 integrated project version of
>> OpenStack to hold together.
> 
> Thanks for doing this. The requirements look good to me.
> 
> I think it's about time we gathered all requirements together and
> properly documented them so people realize there's a much bigger
> picture. I've started pulling together some stuff here:
> 
>   https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/incubation-and-integration-requirements
> 
> but clearly there's a lot of work to do.
> 
> One thing I really, really want is for the rules to be accompanied with
> a good explanation of what the rules are there to achieve. We cannot let
> ourselves turn into a community that over-zealously applies rules to the
> extent that the rules do more damage than good.
> 
> There's always got to be a judgement call involved. I'm happy that
> Ceilometer graduated, even though it doesn't have gating tests. I think
> it has been a positive addition and I'd rather have it without the
> gating tests than not at all.
> 
> The guidelines like this will greatly encourage projects to up their
> game and hopefully we'll rarely be faced with a generally awesome
> project wanting to graduate but it not having integration tests.
> However, if that did happen, we need it to at least be possible for us
> to have a rational, big-picture conversation about whether some
> rule-bending is the best thing overall for the project.

Absolutely, I'm completely happy to call these guidelines, this wasn't
meant as a written in stone, but as best practices. Rationale is of
utmost importance, it informs the future community why we chose to do a
thing, which also makes it clear when that guideline is no longer
relevant because something else changed.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131116/61e952c4/attachment.pgp>