Open Stack

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:14:52PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 11:41 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote:
> > IMO, it's a communication issue and related  more to Puppet OpenStack
> > community that to Fuel Library folks. In Fuel Library when patch from
> > external contributor has some problems we cherry-pick it, update a
> > patchset to succeed our expectations. Meanwhile we contact the
> > contributor over IRC or email and explain why we did that. That's very
> > important as contributor may not know all architectural details. He may
> > not know the details of CI tests or details how we test. That's the good
> > attitude to help newcomers. So they will be naturally involved to
> > community. Yes, it takes time for Fuel Library folks, but we continue
> > doing that way as we think that communication with contributor is a key
> > of success.
> 
> Adding someone by using Gerrit is not enough. Communication on IRC with
> Puppet OpenStack group would be good on the right channel, like it's
> done in other OpenStack projects quite often.

+1

> > I have looked over patches in progress. I may be wrong but I didn't find
> > that Puppet OpenStack community updated patch to pass CI. It's not
> > complex to cherry-pick and fix failed tests. It's also not complex to
> > contact person over IRC or in email to explain what needs to be done.
> > Trust me, usually it takes once. Smart creatives are clever enough not
> > to make same mistakes twice.

+1, and I also agree with Emilien that Fuel developers should join
#puppet-openstack for such discussions, instead of waiting for Puppet
OpenStack developers to find them on #fuel-dev.

> https://bugs.launchpad.net/puppet-openstack/+bugs is for
> puppet-openstack, which is deprecated in Juno.
> 
> You should look https://launchpad.net/openstack-puppet-modules which
> contains mostly triaged bugs.

Looks like you need to update the links here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Puppet

It still sends bug reporters to https://launchpad.net/puppet-openstack/

> Honestly, if you submit a good patch now, it will land in maximum one
> week or so.

Yes, one week is a timeframe we can work with.

> If Fuel team could also participate in upstream reviews that would be
> awesome:
> * they would be involved in the community
> * they would get experience from other patches and provide better
> patches in the future, and get reviews merged faster.

Agreed. Even something as small as one review per week would be a good
start.

Do you have a gerrit review dashboard like the one we use in Fuel:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel#Development_related_links

or something else to track reviews backlog?

> > From Fuel side I see that some engineers will be involved to review
> > process. They will participate in weekly meetings. They also be active
> > in communication asking people for help in review or asking why CI failed.
> 
> Good.

I'm wondering if we could set up something like an "upstream liaison
duty roster", so that there's always a couple of engineers in the Fuel
team who make sure that communication with upstream is not falling
through the cracks.

-- 
Dmitry Borodaenko