Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Treinish [mailto:mtreinish at kortar.org]
> Sent: 09 November 2015 22:40
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Making stable maintenance its own
> OpenStack project team
> 
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2015-11-09 16:05:29 -0600:
> > >
> > > On 11/9/2015 10:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > A few cycles ago we set up the Release Cycle Management team which
> > > > was a bit of a frankenteam of the things I happened to be leading:
> > > > release management, stable branch maintenance and vulnerability
> management.
> > > > While you could argue that there was some overlap between those
> > > > functions (as in, "all these things need to be released") logic
> > > > was not the primary reason they were put together.
> > > >
> > > > When the Security Team was created, the VMT was spinned out of the
> > > > Release Cycle Management team and joined there. Now I think we
> > > > should spin out stable branch maintenance as well:
> > > >
> > > > * A good chunk of the stable team work used to be stable point
> > > > release management, but as of stable/liberty this is now done by
> > > > the release management team and triggered by the project-specific
> > > > stable maintenance teams, so there is no more overlap in tooling
> > > > used there
> > > >
> > > > * Following the kilo reform, the stable team is now focused on
> > > > defining and enforcing a common stable branch policy[1], rather
> > > > than approving every patch. Being more visible and having more
> > > > dedicated members can only help in that very specific mission
> > > >
> > > > * The release team is now headed by Doug Hellmann, who is focused
> > > > on release management and does not have the history I had with
> > > > stable branch policy. So it might be the right moment to refocus
> > > > release management solely on release management and get the stable
> > > > team its own leadership
> > > >
> > > > * Empowering that team to make its own decisions, giving it more
> > > > visibility and recognition will hopefully lead to more resources
> > > > being dedicated to it
> > > >
> > > > * If the team expands, it could finally own stable branch health
> > > > and gate fixing. If that ends up all falling under the same roof,
> > > > that team could make decisions on support timeframes as well,
> > > > since it will be the primary resource to make that work
> > >
> > > Isn't this kind of already what the stable maint team does? Well,
> > > that and some QA people like mtreinish and sdague.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So.. good idea ? bad idea ? What do current stable-maint-core[2]
> > > > members think of that ? Who thinks they could step up to lead that
> team ?
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
> > > > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/530,members
> > > >
> > >
> > > With the decentralizing of the stable branch stuff in Liberty [1] it
> > > seems like there would be less use for a PTL for stable branch
> > > maintenance - the cats are now herding themselves, right? Or at
> > > least that's the plan as far as I understood it. And the existing
> > > stable branch wizards are more or less around for help and answering
> questions.
> >
> > The same might be said about releasing from master and the release
> > management team. There's still some benefit to having people dedicated
> > to making sure projects all agree to sane policies and to keep up with
> > deliverables that need to be released.
> 
> Except the distinction is that relmgt is actually producing something. Relmgt
> has the releases repo which does centralize library releases, reno to do the
> release notes, etc. What does the global stable core do? Right now it's there
> almost entirely to just add people to the project specific stable core teams.
> 
> -Matt Treinish


I'd like to move the discussion from what are the roles of the current stable-maint-core and more towards what the benefits would be having a stable-maint team rather than the -core group alone.

Personally I think the stable maintenance should be quite a lot more than unblocking gate and approving people allowed to merge to the stable branches.

- Erno
> 
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-November/078
> > > 281.html
> > >