[openstack-dev] [puppet] [fuel] more collaboration request

Dmitry Borodaenko dborodaenko at mirantis.com
Fri Jun 12 10:28:55 UTC 2015

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 09:24:33AM +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> I'm sure you both, and the Fuel team, are acting on good faith but I
> believe, in this case, there's no problem that makes copy/pasting
> code, and therefore loosing commits attribution, acceptable.

To sum up my previous emails, you're wrong on all accounts: commits and
attribution are different things; we're not losing attribution; losing
commit history is acceptable.

> The fact that you are developing Fuel in the open is awesome and I
> really hope you never change your mind on that but please, do find a
> solution for this issue. As you can see from this thread, it creates
> lots of frustration and it makes other project's work more difficult.

I have already explained in the thread how we address the problem of
tracking down and managing the Fuel specific changes in forked modules.
With that problem addressed, I don't see any other objective reason for
frustration. Does anybody's bonus depend on the number of lines of code
in stackforge repositories such as fuel-library that git blame
attributes to their name?

> >The most problematic implication of what you're asking for is the
> >additional effort that it would require from Fuel developers. When you
> >say that Puppet OpenStack developers don't have time to look at Fuel git
> >history for bugfixes, and then observe that actually Fuel developers do
> >propose their patches to upstream, but those patches are stalled in the
> >community review process, this indicates that you don't consider taking
> >over and landing these patches a priority:
> >
> >http://lifehacker.com/5892948/instead-of-saying-i-dont-have-time-say-its-not-a-priority
> >
> >The fact that you have started this thread means that you actually do
> >care to get these bugfixes into Puppet OpenStack. If that's true, maybe
> >you can consider a middleground approach: Fuel team agrees to propose
> >all our changes to upstream (i.e. do a better job at something we've
> >already committed to unilaterally), and you help us land the patches we
> >propose, and take over those that get stalled when the submitter from
> >Fuel team has moved on to other tasks?
> Assuming good faith, I'd guess you meant something: "Please, help us
> prioritize patches comming from Fuel".

Please do not assume that what I actually meant (as I explained in
previous reply to Emilien) is incompatible with good faith. I am a
strong believer in Free Software, and I want to improve collaboration
between Puppet OpenStack and Fuel. I also know that unless we come up
with collaboration improvements that are mutually beneficial to both
projects, nothing will change and this discussion will remain, as
Emilien has put it, just words.

Dmitry Borodaenko

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list