Open Stack

On Jun 16, 2014 10:02 AM, "Sean Dague" <sean at dague.net> wrote:
>
> On 06/16/2014 12:44 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:
> > On 06/16/2014 08:37 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> Sean Dague wrote:
> >>> Hacking 0.9 series was released pretty late for Juno. The entire
> >>> check queue was flooded this morning with requirements proposals
> >>> failing pep8 because of it (so at 6am EST we were waiting 1.5 hrs
> >>> for a check node).
> >>>
> >>> The previous soft policy with pep8 updates was that we set a
> >>> pep8 version basically release week, and changes stopped being
> >>> done for style after first milestone.
> >>>
> >>> I think in the spirit of that we should revert the hacking
> >>> requirements update back to the 0.8 series for Juno. We're past
> >>> milestone 1, so shouldn't be working on style only fixes at this
> >>> point.
> >>>
> >>> Proposed review here - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100231/
> >>>
> >>> I also think in future hacking major releases need to happen
> >>> within one week of release, or not at all for that series.
> >
> >> We may also have reached a size where changing style rules is just
> >> too costly, whatever the moment in the cycle. I think it's good
> >> that we have rules to enforce a minimum of common style, but the
> >> added value of those extra rules is limited, while their impact on
> >> the common gate grows as we add more projects.
> >
> > A few thoughts:
> >
> > 1) I disagree with the proposition that hacking updates can only
> > happen in the first week after release.  I get that there needs to be
> > a cutoff, but I don't think one week is reasonable.  Even if we
> > release in the first week, you're still going to be dealing with
> > hacking updates for the rest of the cycle as projects adopt the new
> > rules at their leisure.  I don't like retroactively applying milestone
> > 1 as a cutoff either, although I could see making that the policy
> > going forward.
> >
> > 2) Given that most of the changes involved in fixing the new failures
> > are trivial, I think we should encourage combining the fixes into one
> > commit.  We _really_ don't need separate commits to fix H305 and H307.
> >  This doesn't help much with the reviewer load, but it should reduce
> > the gate load somewhat.  It violates the one change-one commit rule,
> > but "A foolish consistency..."
>
> The challenge is that hacking updates are basically giant merge conflict
> engines. If there is any significant amount of code outstanding in a
> project, landing hacking only changes basically means requiring much of
> the outstanding code to rebase.
>
> So it's actually expensive in a way that doesn't jump out immediately.
> The cost of landing hacking isn't just the code of reviewing the hacking
> patches, it's also the cost of the extra roundtrips on outstanding
patches.

When a project chooses to enforce rules us decoupled with when hacking if
released. So this sounds like a related yet different issue.

>
> > 3) We should start requiring specs for all new hacking rules to make
> > sure we have consensus (I think oslo-specs is the place for this).  2
> > +2's doesn't really accomplish that.  We also may need to raise the
> > bar for inclusion of new rules - while I agree with all of the new
> > ones added in hacking .9, I wonder if some of them are really necessary.
>
> > 4) I don't think we're at a point where we should freeze hacking
> > completely, however.  The import grouping and long line wrapping
> > checks in particular are things that reviewers have to enforce today,
> > and that has a significant, if less well-defined, cost too.  If we're
> > really going to say those rules can't be enforced by hacking then we
> > need to remove them from our hacking guidelines and start the long
> > process of educating reviewers to stop requiring them.  I'd rather
> > just deal with the pain of adding them to hacking one time and never
> > have to think about them again.  I'm less convinced the other two that
> > were added in .9 are necessary, but in any case these are discussions
> > that should happen in spec reviews going forward.
>
> I think both of those cases are really nits to the point that they
> aren't worth enforcing. They won't change the correctness of the code.
> And barely change the readability.
>
> There are differences with things like the is None checks, or python 3
> checks, which change correctness, or prevent subtle bugs. But I think
> we're now getting to a level of cleanliness enforcement that trumps
> functionally working.
>
> > 5) We may want to come up with some way to globally disable pep8
> > checks we don't want to enforce, since we don't have any control over
> > that but probably don't want to just stop updating pep8.  That could
> > make the pain of these updates much less.
>
> Actually, if you look at python novaclient, the doc string checks, which
> are really niggly, and part of hacking are the biggest fails. It's much
> less upstream that's doing this to us.
>
> > I could probably come up with a few more, but this is already too
> > wall-of-texty for my tastes. :-)
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140616/7ed0d735/attachment.html>