Open Stack

On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 15:31 +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Hi all,
> at the moment we have several bot jobs that sync contents to affected
> projects:
> 
> - translations are copied from transifex;
> - requirements are copied from global requirements repo.
> 
> We have another source of common code - oslo-incubator, though we
> still rely on people manually copying the new code from there to
> affected projects. This results in old, buggy, and sometimes
> completely different versions of the same code in all projects.
> 
> I wonder why don't we set another bot to sync code from incubator? In
> that way, we would:
> - reduce work to do for developers [I hope everyone knows how boring
> it is to fill in commit message with all commits synchronized and
> create sync requests for > 10 projects at once];
> - make sure all projects use (almost) the same code;
> - ensure projects are notified in advance in case API changed in one
> of the modules that resulted in failures in gate;
> - our LOC statistics will be a bit more fair ;) (currently, the one
> who syncs a large piece of code from incubator to a project, gets all
> the LOC credit at e.g. stackalytics.com).
> 
> The changes will still be gated, so any failures and incompatibilities
> will be caught. I even don't expect most of sync requests to fail at
> all, meaning it will be just a matter of two +2's from cores.
> 
> I know that Oslo team works hard to graduate lots of modules from
> incubator to separate libraries with stable API. Still, I guess we'll
> live with incubator at least another cycle or two.
> 
> What are your thoughts on that?

Just repeating what I said on IRC ...

The point of oslo-incubator is that it's a place where APIs can be
cleaned up so that they are ready for graduation. Code living in
oslo-incubator for a long time with unchanging APIs is not the idea. An
automated sync job would IMHO discourage API cleanup work. I'd expect
people would start adding lots of ugly backwards API compat hacks with
their API cleanups just to stop people complaining about failing
auto-syncs. That would be the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.

Mark.