Open Stack

On 26/09/14 03:35, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Griffith <john.griffith8 at gmail.com>
> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Date: September 25, 2014 at 12:27:52
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Get rid of the sample config file
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Devdatta Kulkarni <
>> devdatta.kulkarni at rackspace.com> wrote:
>>  
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We have faced this situation in Solum several times. And in fact this was
>>> one of the topics
>>> that we discussed in our last irc meeting.
>>>
>>> We landed on separating the sample check from pep8 gate into a non-voting
>>> gate.
>>> One reason to keep the sample check is so that when say a feature in your
>>> code fails
>>> due to some upstream changes and for which you don't have coverage in your
>>> functional tests then
>>> a non-voting but failing sample check gate can be used as a starting point
>>> of the failure investigation.
>>>
>>> More details about the discussion can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/solum_team_meeting/2014/solum_team_meeting.2014-09-23-16.00.log.txt  
>>>
>>> - Devdatta
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* David Shrewsbury [shrewsbury.dave at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:42 PM
>>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Get rid of the sample config file
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes <
>>> lucasagomes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Today we have hit the problem of having an outdated sample
>>>> configuration file again[1]. The problem of the sample generation is
>>>> that it picks up configuration from other projects/libs
>>>> (keystoneclient in that case) and this break the Ironic gate without
>>>> us doing anything.
>>>>
>>>> So, what you guys think about removing the test that compares the
>>>> configuration files and makes it no longer gate[2]?
>>>>
>>>> We already have a tox command to generate the sample configuration
>>>> file[3], so folks that needs it can generate it locally.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone disagree?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> +1 to this, but I think we should document how to generate the sample
>>> config
>>> in our documentation (install guide?).
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>> --
>>> David Shrewsbury (Shrews)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>> I tried this in Cinder a while back and was actually rather surprised by
>> the overwhelming push-back I received from the Operator community, and
>> whether I agreed with all of it or not, the last thing I want to do is
>> ignore the Operators that are actually standing up and maintaining what
>> we're building.
>>  
>> Really at the end of the day this isn't really that big of a deal. It's
>> relatively easy to update the config in most of the projects "tox
>> -egenconfig" see my posting back in May [1]. For all the more often this
>> should happen I'm not sure why we can't have enough contributors that are
>> just pro-active enough to "fix it up" when they see it falls out of date.
>>  
>> John
>>  
>> [1]: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/036438.html  
> 
> +1 to what John just said.
>  
> I know in Keystone we update the sample config (usually) whenever we notice it out of date. Often we ask developers making config changes to run `tox -esample_config` and re-upload their patch. If someone misses we (the cores) will do a patch that just updates the sample config along the way. Ideally we should have a check job that just reports the config is out of date (instead of blocking the review).
> 
> The issue is the premise that there are 2 options:
> 
> 1) Gate on the sample config being current
> 2) Have no sample config in the tree.
> 
> The missing third option is the proactive approach (plus having something convenient like `tox -egenconfig` or `tox -eupdate_sample_config` to make it convenient to update the sample config) is the approach that covers both sides nicely. The Operators/deployers have the sample config in tree, the developers don’t get patched rejected in the gate because the sample config doesn’t match new options in an external library.
> 
> I know a lot of operators and deployers appreciate the sample config being in-tree.

Just confirming this is definitely the case.

Regards,


Tom