Open Stack

On Jan 17, 2014 12:24 AM, "Flavio Percoco" <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

When we started Oslo incubator, we treated that code as trusted. But since
then there have been occasional issues when syncing the code. So Oslo
incubator code has lost *my* trust. Therefore I am always a hesitant to do
a full Oslo sync because I am not an expert on the Oslo code and I risk
breaking something when doing it (the issue may not appear 100% of the time
too). Syncing code in becomes the first time that code is run against
tempest, which scares me.

I would like to propose having a integration test job in Oslo incubator
that syncs in the code, similar to how we do global requirements.

Additionally, what about a periodic jenkins job that does the Oslo syncs
and is managed by the Oslo team itself?

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140121/ec54f21b/attachment.html>