Open Stack

On 8/26/2015 9:15 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/26/2015 03:34 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 08/25/2015 08:59 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/25/2015 10:04 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>>> On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>>>> Hi, [...] Anyway, the result is that mock 1.3 broke 9
>>>>> packages at least in Kilo, currently in Sid [1]. Maybe, as
>>>>> packages gets rebuilt, I'll get more bug reports. This
>>>>> really, is a depressing situation. [...]
>>>>
>>>> Some ppl on IRC explained to me what the situation was, which
>>>> is that the mock API has been wrongly used, and some tests were
>>>> in fact wrongly passing, so indeed, this is one of the rare
>>>> cases where breaking the API probably made sense.
>>>>
>>>> As it doesn't bring anything to repair these tests, I'm just
>>>> not running them in Kilo from now on, using something like
>>>> this:
>>>>
>>>> --subunit 'tests\.unit\.(?!.*foo.*)
>>>>
>>>> Please comment if you think that's the wrong way to go. Also,
>>>> has some of these been repaired in the stable/kilo branch?
>>>
>>> I seem to remember some projects backporting the test fixes to
>>> stable/kilo but ultimately we just capped mock on the stable
>>> branches to avoid this issue there.
>>
>> I really wish that nothing of this kind was even possible. Adding
>> such an upper cap is like hiding the dust under the carpet: it
>> doesn't remove the issue, it just hides it. We really have too much
>> of these in OpenStack. Fixing broken tests was the correct thing to
>> do, IMO.
>>
>
> I think whoever is interested in raising a cap is free to send patches
> and get it up. I don't think those patches would be blocked.
>
> Ihar
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV3coRAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57FBsH/05W80HXQRLlGARiN4K5SA8T
> kC8dVlKx7OPcg/XY77GMHn/oacPErXcPQFreWW1EHwFpIFePNroE1mrwZjIkgy5L
> ehsn/I7B3lhKLq3yqlE+MdyoeCcgXBW/Hi4DzMGEu+Os59dYc+LrO5vAjEieoU50
> SsqfsHBoJo4SjtgoJdp0Q/dlaVlXuetCF5I/DWvhvJVrYuJBHIFjORTjkc6RZOOU
> Ke+bBRjbxJFYcTDWlE8AHzssfIDCnYlDv9+pFv+JO+tCqxIhiOraVxq+sD60fJww
> pExbjkZikhrRaqzzdLnYm0/ZDNzPS/UO+JSEZPFwu/pUGc7ztB/7+1PFf2oyftI=
> =TEyG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

Right, there is a very small team of people that actually care about and 
try to maintain stable branches for all projects and when things are 
completely wedged, our first response is to get things unwedged as soon 
as possible.  This is generally because the longer you wait to get 
stable branches fixes, as soon as you fix the first problem there is a 
new problem and you're just constantly thrashing on digging out.

If there was a more community-wide concerted all-hands-on-deck effort 
when it comes to gate breakages and stable branch maintenance, then we 
would maybe be less prone to cap dependencies.

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann