Open Stack

Excerpts from Emilien Macchi's message of 2015-12-08 14:33:00 -0500:
> This morning the Puppet OpenStack had the weekly meeting [1] and we
> discussed about using reno [2] for release note management.
> 
> We saw three possibilities:
> 
> 1/ we use reno and enforce each contributions (bugfix, feature, etc) to
> also edit a release note YAML file
> 2/ we use reno and the release note YAML file can be updated later (by
> the contributor or someone else)
> 3/ we don't use reno and continue to manually write release notes
> 
> The solution 3/ is definitely not in our scope and we are willing to use
> reno. Though we are looking for a way to switch using it.
> 
> Some people in our group shared some feedback, and ideas. Feel free to
> comment inline:
> 
> * Having a YAML file for one feature/bugfix/... sounds heavy.
> * We have 23 repositories (modules) - we will probably start using reno
> for one or two modules, and see how it works.
> * We will apply 2/ with the goal to go 1/ one day. We think directly
> doing 1/ will have the risk to frustrate our group since not anyone is
> familiar with releases. Giving -1 to a good patch just because it does
> not have a release note update is not something we want now. We need to
> educate people at using it, that's why I think we might go 2/.
> * Using reno will spread the release note management to our group,
> instead of one release manager taking care of that.

This sounds like a good way to ease into the change.

I suggest that as part of option 2, reviewers who might have voted
-1 on a patch under option 1 could submit a follow-up patch to add
the note. That will help educate contributors about the need to do
it, and make the note patch easy to find for them so they can review
it.

Doug

> 
> Feel free to have more feedback or comment inline, we are really willing
> to suggestions.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/PuppetOpenStack#Previous_meetings
> (2] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/reno/