Open Stack

Yes, this is a reasonable way to handle repo creation requests, and we
should update our wiki to reflect this:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Plugins#Repo

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 05:01:39PM +0100, Mateusz Matuszkowiak wrote:
> 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, 

Not necessarily github, any public git hosting should work just as well.

> 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
>