Open Stack

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 17/06/14 02:46, 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.

Can't we move to a mode of enabling rules instead of ignoring them?
If we did this in tox.ini then it wouldn't matter when you release
hacking.

[hacking]
errors = H306,...
ignore = H101

So if you upgraded hacking you would not get the new checks generating
errors, but only warnings.

I guess the list of rules to error on would get big, but maybe we could have
some short cuts (H3*,H2*)?

At least the projects are a bit more in control of what rule they add.

- -Angus

> 
> 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..."
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTn2eqAAoJEFrDYBLxZjWo9dkIAJ55WTdVZgIHEFJGp+7Px8jC
FxsBzRvDKeDTN6ONXUtE82G10ru6UR0HNndfhgbdEVQSazdcavbd/Q0AG+tmDyaE
7PBUpJ3bVIQVpJQ9tz/Xo4dqvsZhsOZBo28iLJyShU+VYy05I16WCGpsS0NUlD95
ND78vjwUCNnjbzkOgBjt6V0QsuWpEZynIR6PfRkUJaaT+gFtrhAG7n4aQmgYnJri
9huTnEjyyg9KldlinxLxVP9nk2uVoKD7sfDAvREAjstFeRK4tVcdspB6xxPkfTKA
RDAG1tGT0yvD3VtgqajFlJvImUyV7YN3/zXyXxKeb0301ouWpFeyiSZ1jqsK6Nc=
=/Tmf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----