Open Stack

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Nachi Ueno <nachi at ntti3.com> wrote:

> Hi folks
>
> I believed we should link bug or bp for any commit except automated
> commit by infra.
> However, I found also there is no written policy for this.
> so may be, I'm wrong for here.
>
> The reason, we need bug or bp linked , is
>
> (1) Triage for core reviewing

(2) Avoid duplication of works
>

I'm not sure how this will help. folks will just file duplicate bugs write
before the push there patch for review.


> (3) Release management
>

Can you give some examples to show why requiring a bug or bp helps with the
items listed above.


>
> IMO, generally, the answer is yes.
>
> However, how about small 5-6 nit change?
> so such patch will be exception or not?
>
> I wanna ask community opinion, and I'll update gerrit workflow page based
> on
> this discussion.
>

I don't trying to enforce this policy alone will help. For a patch that
doesn't have a bug or blueprint assocatiated we have two options.

* File a blueprint. Now that many projects use specs repos blueprints have
a significant overhead associated with them, so we should be careful about
incurring that overhead.
* File a bug. Sure we can file a bug for every patch, but there is still an
overhead associated with that, and in most cases I don't think it really
buys us much. If the change isn't a real bug but say 'sync code from
oslo-incubator' what does adding a linked bug really buy us?


>
> Best
> Nachi
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140524/4501e28a/attachment.html>