Open Stack

On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
>>> theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be
>>> part of this spec -
>>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/docs-specs/specs/mitaka/review-docimpact.html
>>>
>>
>> Lana talked with John Garbutt about this and announced this also in
>> several 'What's up' newsletters like
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-December/081522.html
>>
>>
>>> First, a heads up would be good. Nova burns a lot of nodes (i.e. has a
>>> lot of patch volume), so this just decreased everyone's CI capacity
>>> noticably.
>>
>> I understand this reasoning and Joshua worked on a superior solution,
>> see
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-infra/zuul+branch:master+topic:skip-commit,n,z
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Secondly, this all seems like the wrong direction. We've got reno now,
>>> which is extremely useful for documenting significant changes in the
>>> code base that need to be reflected up. We've dropped UpgradeImpact for
>>> an upgrade comment in reno, which is *so* much better.
>>>
>>> It seems like using reno instead of commit message tags would be much
>>> better for everyone here.
>>
>> The goal of DocImpact is to notify the Documentation team about changes
>> - currently done via bugs in launchpad so that manuals can be easily
>> updated. How would this tracking work with docimpact?
>
> Because the current concern seems to be that naked DocImpact tag leaves
> people guessing what is important. And I understand that. There is a
> whole job now to just check that DocImpact containts a reason after it.
>
> We now have a very detailed system in reno to describe changes that will
> impact people using the code. It lets you do that with the commit and
> provide an arbitrarily large amount of content in it describing what and
> why you think that's important to reflect up.
>
> I think it effectively deprecates all *Impact flags. Now we have a place
> for that payload.


We - Sean, Anne Gentle, and Jeremy Stanley - just discussed this on 
#openstack-infra, let me summarize my understanding:

Some flags are used for checking before a merge the changes, especially 
SecurityImpact and APIImpact. These are used for reviewing the changes. 
This would be nice for DocImpact as well. SecurityImpact creates emails 
for merged changes, DocImpact creates bugs for merged changes.

When the docimpact spec was written, reno was not in use - and later 
nobody brought it up as alternative idea.

The idea going forward is instead of checking the commit message, is to 
add a special section using reno that explains the changes that are 
needed. A post-job would run and create bugs or sends out emails like 
today whenever a new entry gets added. But this would be triggered by 
special sections in the release-notes and not in the commit message. We 
also expect/hope that release notes get a good review and thus the 
quality of these notifications would be improved.

Let's look on how exactly we can do this next year,

Andreas
-- 
  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
   SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
    GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
        HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126