Open Stack

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 3, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Devananda van der Veen <
> devananda.vdv at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
>> wrote:
>> > As promised at this week’s TC meeting, I have applied the various blog
>> posts and mailing list threads related to changing our governance model to
>> a series of patches against the openstack/governance repository [1].
>> >
>> > I have tried to include all of the inputs, as well as my own opinions,
>> and look at how each proposal needs to be reflected in our current policies
>> so we do not drop commitments we want to retain along with the processes we
>> are shedding [2].
>> >
>> > I am sure we need more discussion, so I have staged the changes as a
>> series rather than one big patch. Please consider the patches together when
>> commenting. There are many related changes, and some incremental steps
>> won’t make sense without the changes that come after (hey, just like code!).
>> >
>> > Doug
>> >
>> > [1]
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/governance+branch:master+topic:big-tent,n,z
>> > [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/big-tent-notes
>>
>> I've summed up a lot of my current thinking on this etherpad as well
>> (I should really blog, but hey ...)
>>
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/in-pursuit-of-a-new-taxonomy
>>
>>
> After seeing Jay's idea of making a yaml file modeling things and talking
> to devananda about this I went ahead and tried to graph the relationships
> out.
>
> repo: https://github.com/jogo/graphing-openstack
> preliminary YAML file:
> https://github.com/jogo/graphing-openstack/blob/master/openstack.yaml
> sample graph: http://i.imgur.com/LwlkE73.png
>
> It turns out its really hard to figure out what the relationships are
> without digging deep into the code for each project, so I am sure I got a
> few things wrong (along with missing a lot of projects).
>
>
> The relationships are very important for setting up an optimal gate
> structure. I’m less convinced they are important for setting up the
> governance structure, and I do not think we want a specific gate
> configuration embedded in the governance structure at all. That’s why I’ve
> tried to describe general relationships (“optional inter-project
> dependences” vs. “strict co-dependent project groups” [1]) up until the
> very last patch in the series [2], which redefines the integrated release
> in terms of those other relationships and a base set of projects.
>
>
I agree the relationships are very important for gate structure and less so
for governance. I thought it would be nice to codify the relationships in a
machine readable format so we can do things with it, like try making
different rules and see how they would work.  For example we can already
make two groups of things that may be useful for testing:

* services that nothing depends on
* services that don't depend on other services

Latest graph: http://i.imgur.com/y8zmNIM.png


> Doug
>
> [1]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125785/2/reference/project-testing-policies.rst
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125789/
>
>
> -Deva
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141003/81ede9d5/attachment.html>