Open Stack

Dmitry,

So this changes the workflow for the devopses, the fuel plugin repo creators under Openstack namespace.

As I understand, development of every new fuel plugin must be now started in a private github repo first, 
and when a developer(s) decide they want to go level higher they request for a validation. 
And only after successfull validation they should request a repository creation (via LP bug) for their plugin under Openstack NS, right? 
I’m asking since its important for us to properly handle these kind of bugs [0].

Regards,

[0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1544536 <https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1544536>

--
Fuel DevOps
Mateusz Matuszkowiak


> On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:27 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko <dborodaenko at mirantis.com> wrote:
> 
> It has been over a year since pluggable architecture was introduced in
> Fuel 6.0, and I think it's safe to declare it an unmitigated success. A
> search for "fuel-plugin" on GitHub brings up 167 repositories [0],
> there's 63 Fuel plugin repositories on review.openstack.org [1], 25 Fuel
> plugins are listed in the DriverLog [2].
> 
> [0] https://github.com/search?q=fuel-plugin-
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/projects/?filter=openstack%252Ffuel-plugin-
> [2] http://stackalytics.com/report/driverlog?project_id=openstack%2Ffuel
> 
> Even though the plugin engine is not yet complete (there still are
> things you can do in Fuel core that you cannot do in a plugin), dozens
> of deployers and developers [3] used it to expand Fuel capabilities
> beyond the limitations of our default reference architecture.
> 
> [3] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/fuel-plugins-group/360
> 
> There's a noticeable bump in contributions around October 2015 after
> Fuel 7.0 was released, most likely inspired by the plugin engine
> improvements introduced in that version [4]. As we continue to expand
> plugins capabilities, I expect more and more plugins to appear.
> 
> [4] https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/fuel-docs/tree/pages/release-notes/v7-0/new_features/plugins.rst?h=stable/7.0
> 
> The question of how useful exactly all those plugins are is a bit harder
> to answer. DriverLog isn't much help: less than half of Fuel plugins
> hosted on OpenStack infrastructure are even registered there, and of
> those that are, only 6 have CI jobs with recent successful runs. Does
> this mean that 90% of Fuel plugins are broken and unmaintained? Not
> necessarily, but it does mean that we have no way to tell.
> 
> An even harder question is: once we determine that some plugins are more
> equal than others, what should we do about the less useful and the less
> actively maintained?
> 
> To objectively answer both questions, we need to define support levels
> for Fuel plugins and set some reasonable expectations about how plugins
> can qualify for each level.
> 
> Level 3. Plugin is not actively supported
> 
> I believe that having hundreds of Fuel plugins out there on GitHub and
> elsewhere is great, and we should encourage people to create more of
> those and do whatever they like with them. Even a single-commit "deploy
> and forget" plugin is useful as an idea, a source of inspiration, and a
> starting point for other people who might want to take it further.
> 
> At this level, there should be zero expectations and zero obligations
> between Fuel plugin writers and OpenStack community. At the moment, Fuel
> plugins developers guide recommends [5] to request a Gerrit repo in the
> openstack/ namespace and set up branches, tags, CI, and a code review
> process around it, aligned with OpenStack development process. Which is
> generally a good idea, except for all the cases where it's too much
> overhead and ends up not being followed closely enough to be useful.
> 
> [5] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Plugins#Repo
> 
> Instead of vague blanket recommendations, we should explictly state that
> it's fine to do none of that and just stay on GitHub, and that if you
> intend to move to the next level and actively maintain your plugin, and
> expect support with that from Fuel developers and other OpenStack
> projects, these recommendations are not optional and must be fulfilled.
> 
> Level 2. Plugin is actively supported by its registered maintainers 
> 
> To support a Fuel plugin, we need to answer two fundamental questions:
> Can we? Should we?
> 
> I think the minimum requirements to say "yes" to both are:
> 
> a) All of the plugin's source code is explicitly licensed under an
>   OSI-approved license;
> 
> b) The plugin source code repository does not contain binary artefacts
>   such as RPM packages or ISO images (*);
> 
> c) The plugin is registered in DriverLog;
> 
> d) Plugin maintainers listed in DriverLog have confirmed the intent to
>   support the plugin;
> 
> e) Plugin repository on review.openstack.org has a voting CI job that is
>   passing with the latest or, at least, previous major release of Fuel.
> 
> f) All deviations from the OpenStack development process (alternative
>   issue trackers, mailing lists, etc.) are documented in the plugin's
>   README file.
> 
> *  Aside from purely technical issues we're getting because git is not
>   suitable for tracking binary files [6], contaminating the source code
>   with opaque binary blobs makes it impossible to ensure that the
>   plugin remains compliant with the open source requirement (a).
> 
> [6] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-January/083812.html
> 
> In addition to above requirements, we need to set up graceful
> transitions from level 3 to level 2 and back. Meeting the requirements
> should be easy (well, except rewriting commit history to get rid of
> binary blobs under .git, I think it's reasonable to require plugin
> developers to do this where applicable), and if maintainers step down or
> go MIA, we should stash the code in a common repository
> (fuel-plugins-contrib) where it can recovered from later.
> 
> Level 1. Plugin is actively supported by Fuel team
> 
> As we expand plugin capabilities and move more functionality from Fuel
> core into plugins, we will inevitably get to the point where some
> plugins are required to successfully complete even a basic deployment
> (aka "pass BVT"). Even before that, we may decide that some plugins are
> important enough for our reference architecture to allow the state of
> these plugins to affect our release cycle: allow Critical bugs in them
> to affect Fuel release, cover them in acceptance testing for Fuel
> releases and maintenance updates, and so on.
> 
> Obviously, whole Fuel team is expected to support such plugins, and is
> self-motivated to provide timely help to their maintainers to keep them
> healthy. In addition to the expectations from the previous support
> level, we should track the list of these release-critical plugins in the
> policy section of fuel-specs [7].
> 
> [7] https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/fuel-specs/tree/policy
> 
> Thoughts, comments, objections?
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry Borodaenko
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160215/e6c2068f/attachment.html>