Open Stack

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Now that I have better understanding of the history of the commit, I
> understand that this was the best way through. The Sahara and Murano team's
> effort was invaluable in getting these fixed up and in a good state. I
> apologize that I have raised this as an issue. I was very concerned with
> the commits before knowing theses details, It was necessary to get the
> clarification.
>
> Let me clarify what I understand now was going on with them.
>
> Sahara.
> A )Fuel had a number of better parts of the fork. there where two commits
> [1][2] proposed to puppet-sahara from Fuel that where not merged that
> reflected the better side of Fuel's fork.
> B) The Sahara sync commit [3] into fuel represented upstream puppet-sahara
> C) The Adapt commit [4] contained the two commits listed prior in A, kilo
> support, stuff we needed to ensure it worked in fuel and Noop tests.
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198744/
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192721/
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202045
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202195/
>

We will accept any patch that do not break backward compatibility for at
least one release.

Murano
> D) Fuel has effectively the only usable Murano module
> E) The Adapt commit [5] represented
> * a major over hall of the code quality to make it suitable to propose
> upstream
> * fixes necessary to support kilo
> * cleanup for modular
> * Noop tests
>

If you consider to propose upstream, please follow this instructions to
bootstrap the basic code structure:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Puppet/New_module

That will help you to have a compliant module from start.


> [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203731/
>
> With the improved clarity of what was going on, it made it much easier
> understand what I was reviewing and I'm glad of the current state.
>
> Here are my thoughts on what we can do better next time:
> * The commit and CR messages where not sufficient to understand entirely
> what was going on with the commits and how it was tested.
> * Separate out some of the changes into a commit chain to reduce the scope
> of each CR so that its easier to review.
> * For large reviews like this, we should let more reviewers know whats
> going on the ML early. These showed up on my radar late and of course, I
> freaked out.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:51 AM Denis Egorenko <degorenko at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew!
>>
>> Sahara already merged. All CI tests were succeeded, also was built custom
>> iso [1] and ran bvt tests [2], which also were succeeded and we got +1 from
>> QA team.
>> For Murano we will do the same: resolve all comments, build custom iso,
>> run custom bvt and wait +1 from Fuel CI and QA team.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://jenkins-product.srt.mirantis.net:8080/view/custom_iso/job/custom_7.0_iso/562/
>>
>> [2]
>> http://jenkins-product.srt.mirantis.net:8080/view/custom_iso/job/7.0.custom.ubuntu.bvt_2/131/
>>
>> 2015-07-22 0:41 GMT+03:00 Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I was looped into reviewing the sync commits for Murano and Sahara. Both
>>> are in terrible shape and risk feature freeze at this point.
>>>
>>> We need feed back from the authors here. What is actually required for
>>> Kilo support (if any)from the Murano and Sahara modules? What will happen
>>> if these slip the release. What can you do to simplify the review scope.
>>> The most we can reasonably review is 500 LOC in any short time (and that's
>>> pushing it).
>>>
>>> Synopsis:
>>> murano [1] is -2, this can't be merged; there is a adapt commit with out
>>> any sync commit. The only way we will accept the fork method is a sync from
>>> upstream +adapt as documented in [2] also it's neigh impossible to review
>>> something this large with out the separation.
>>> -2 There is no upstream repo with content, so where did this even come
>>> from? We are/where the authority for murano at present so I'm baffled as to
>>> where this came from.
>>>
>>> Possible way through: A) Split sync from adapt, hopefully the adapt is
>>> small enough to to review. B)Make only changes necessary for kilo support.
>>>
>>> Sahara [3][4]
>>> This is a RED flah here, I'm not even sure to call it -1, -2 or
>>> something entirely else. I had with Serg M, This is a sync of upstream,
>>> plus the code on review from fuel that is not merged into puppet-sahara.
>>> I'm going to say that our fork is in much better shape at this moment, and
>>> we should just let it be. We shouldn't sync this until the upstream code is
>>> landed.
>>>
>>> Possible way through: C) The two outstanding commits inside the adapt
>>> commit need to be pulled out. They should be proposed right on top of the
>>> sync commit and should apply cleanly. I would prefer to see them as
>>> separate commits so they can be compared to the source more accurately.
>>> This should bring the adapt to something that could be reviewed. D) propose
>>> only the changes necessary to get kilo support.
>>>
>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203731/
>>> [2]
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/How_to_contribute#Adding_new_puppet_modules_to_fuel-library
>>> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202045
>>> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202195/
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Andrew Woodward
>>>
>>> Mirantis
>>>
>>> Fuel Community Ambassador
>>>
>>> Ceph Community
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Egorenko Denis,
>> Deployment Engineer
>> Mirantis
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> --
>
> --
>
> Andrew Woodward
>
> Mirantis
>
> Fuel Community Ambassador
>
> Ceph Community
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Emilien Macchi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150724/78768a9c/attachment.html>