Open Stack

On 08/13/2014 08:07 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:55:48PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:04AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>> That said, I entirely agree with you and wish efforts to stabilize would
>>>> take precedence over feature work.
>>> I find it really contradictory that we have such a strong desire for
>>> stabilization and testing of our code, but at the same time so many
>>> people argue that the core teams should have nothing at all todo with
>>> the stable release branches which a good portion of our users will
>>> actually be running.
>> Does such an argument actually exist?  My experience has been that
>> stable-maint folks are very accepting of help, and that it's relatively
>> easy for core reviewers with an interest in stable branch maintenance to
>> offer their services and become stable-maint core:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Joining_the_Team
> There are multiple responses to my mail here to the effect that core
> teams should not be involved in stable branch work and leave it upto
> the distro maintainers unless individuals wish to volunteer
>
>    http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/041409.html
>
>
>>> By ignoring stable branches, leaving it upto a
>>> small team to handle, I think we giving the wrong message about what
>>> our priorities as a team team are. I can't help thinking this filters
>>> through to impact the way people think about their work on master.
>> Who is ignoring stable branches?  This sounds like a project specific
>> failing to me, as all experienced core reviewers should consider offering
>> their services to help with stable-maint activity.
>>
>> I don't personally see any reason why the *entire* project core team has to
>> do this, but a subset of them should feel compelled to participate in the
>> stable-maint process, if they have sufficient time, interest and historical
>> context, it's not "some other team" IMO.
> I think that stable branch review should be a key responsibility for anyone
> on the core team, not solely those few who volunteer for stable team. As
> the number of projects in openstack grows I think the idea of having a
> single stable team with rights to approve across any project is ultimately
> flawed because it doesn't scale efficiently and they don't have the same
> level of domain knowledge as the respective project teams.
+1
This is exactly the same problem the QA team has. "In the beginning" 
there was nova/glance/swift/(cinder) and most of us knew it pretty well. 
OpenStack has grown so fast that horizontal work like this becomes 
extremely difficult. What Daniel said is one  important part of the 
motivation for moving functional/api tests to projects.

  -David
>
> Regards,
> Daniel