Open Stack

On 16/01/14 17:32 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com> wrote:
>
>    On 2014-01-16 13:48, John Griffith wrote:
>
>        Hey Everyone,
>
>        A review came up today that cherry-picked a specific commit to OSLO
>        Incubator, without updating the rest of the files in the module.  I
>        rejected that patch, because my philosophy has been that when you
>        update/pull from oslo-incubator it should be done as a full sync of
>        the entire module, not a cherry pick of the bits and pieces that you
>        may or may not be interested in.
>
>        As it turns out I've received a bit of push back on this, so it seems
>        maybe I'm being unreasonable, or that I'm mistaken in my understanding
>        of the process here.  To me it seems like a complete and total waste
>        to have an oslo-incubator and common libs if you're going to turn
>        around and just cherry pick changes, but maybe I'm completely out of
>        line.
>
>        Thoughts??
>
>
>    I suppose there might be exceptions, but in general I'm with you.  For one
>    thing, if someone tries to pull out a specific change in the Oslo code,
>    there's no guarantee that code even works.  Depending on how the sync was
>    done it's possible the code they're syncing never passed the Oslo unit
>    tests in the form being synced, and since unit tests aren't synced to the
>    target projects it's conceivable that completely broken code could get
>    through Jenkins.
>
>    Obviously it's possible to do a successful partial sync, but for the sake
>    of reviewer sanity I'm -1 on partial syncs without a _very_ good reason
>    (like it's blocking the gate and there's some reason the full module can't
>    be synced).
>
>
>I agree. Cherry picking a single (or even partial) commit really should be
>avoided.
>
>The update tool does allow syncing just a single module, but that should be
>used very VERY carefully, especially because some of the changes we're making
>as we work on graduating some more libraries will include cross-dependent
>changes between oslo modules.

Agrred. Syncing on master should be complete synchornization from Oslo
incubator. IMHO, the only case where cherry-picking from oslo should
be allowed is when backporting patches to stable branches. Master
branches should try to keep up-to-date with Oslo and sync everything
every time.

With that in mind, I'd like to request project's members to do
periodic syncs from Oslo incubator. Yes, it is tedious, painful and
sometimes requires more than just syncing, but we should all try to
keep up-to-date with Oslo. The main reason why I'm asking this is
precisely "stable branches". If the project stays way behind the
oslo-incubator, it'll be really painful to backport patches to stable
branches in case of failures.

Unfortunately, there are projects that are quite behind from
oslo-incubator master.

One last comment. FWIW, backwards compatibility is always considered
in all Oslo reviews and if there's a crazy-breaking change, it's
always notified.

Thankfully, this all will be alleviated with the libs that are being
pulled out from the incubator. The syncs will contain fewer modules
and will be smaller.


I'm happy you brought this up now. I was meaning to do it.

Cheers,
FF


-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140117/e032290f/attachment.pgp>