Open Stack

On 06/13/2014 05:57 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> That section of the file used to be organized in to separate lists 
> for incubated, integrated, and "other" repositories. We changed it 
> when we started tracking the incubation and integration dates. So it 
> seems like just listing them under sahara as "other" would make 
> sense.

If I understand you correctly you'd have for Juno something like:

- OpenStack Software (top level overview):
   - integrated
	* nova
	* neutron
	* cinder
	* ...
	* sahara
	   ** sahara-other
	* ...
   - incubated
	* ...
   - other
      - clients
        * sahara-client
  [... etc]

Looks a bit complicated to me: I wasn't considering that as an option.

It's worth reminding that the objective of the report is to discover,
highlight trends in each program, monitor the efficacy of  actions taken
to fuel our growth, capture early warning signals of distress in the
community. The grouping should be done among repositories and bug
trackers that share common characteristics.

For example, grouping integrated projects is valuable to calculate the
the median time for patches to merge across them all and compare them to
individual repositories. That's why I ask if repos openstack/sahara-*
should go with openstack/sahara and therefore their numbers aggregated
with the other integrated projects gerrit/git repos. Or, as you seem to
suggest, drop them into 'other' as these (ex.
openstack-dev/heat-cfnclient, openstack/ironic-python-agent,
openstack/tuskar-ui, openstack/sahara-image-elements etc) really have
more in common among each other than with their 'parent' project?
Does that make sense?

On 06/13/2014 08:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I would regroup devstack, QA, Infra and Release management into the 
> same "support" group. Not sure there is much value in presenting them
> distinctly.

Quite the other way around: it makes little sense to complicate the
analysis creating a group for these and it's easier to see them
separately. Also, I think there are different sets of people working on
them, it's more interesting to me to see them separately.

Cheers,
stef


PS in the past message I have *erroneously* included a couple of -specs
repositories: we're going to ignore those in our analysis, we're *not*
counting activity in those.

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