Open Stack

On 08/21/2014 03:12 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> I wonder where discussion around the proposal is running. Is it public?

Yes, it's public, and this thread is part of it. Look at the dates of
the wiki: this is a recent proposal (first appearance Aug 11), came out
to address the GBP issue, quickly iterated over a couple of IRC neutron
meetings, and quick phone calls to get early feedback from the GBP team,
Octavia and a few others.

> Though the way incubator is currently described in that proposal on
> the wiki doesn't clearly imply similar benefits for the project, hence
> concerns.

The rationale for the separate repository is that Neutron's code needs a
lot of love for the *existing* codebase, before new features can be
added (and before core team can accept more responsibilities for it).
But progress is unstoppable: new features are being proposed every cycle
and reviewers bandwidth is not infinite.

That's the gist of 'Mission' and 'Why a Seperate Repo?' on
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Incubator

> Of course, we should raise the bar for all the code - already merged,
> in review, and in incubator. I just think there is no reason to make
> those requirements different from general acceptance requirements (do
> we have those formally defined?).

yes, there is a reason to request higher standards for any new code, why
wouldn't there be? If "legacy" code is struggling to improve test
coverage, there is a very good reason not to accept more debt.

Not sure it's spelled out and where but I believe it's an accepted and
shared best practice among core reviewers not to merge code without tests.

/stef

-- 
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org