[openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

Lana Brindley openstack at lanabrindley.com
Wed Jan 6 00:43:34 UTC 2016

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:35 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 08:01 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
>> I’m late to this party because holidays (Thanks Anne for bringing it to
>> my attention).
>> First of all, sorry this came as a surprise. I tried hard to make sure
>> everyone who needed to know knew, but that’s naturally a difficult thing
>> to do.
>> To the implementation details: I really am struggling to see how Reno
>> could be used as a DocImpact replacement, unless you’re going to use it
>> to somehow enforce that packages with DocImpact include some kind of
>> text file in the commit. That would be complete overkill, and has the
>> potential to really mess up the development repos (who needs random text
>> files littered around?). Maybe I’m missing something here, though.
>> Really, the intent of the job is merely to check for a description after
>> the DocImpact tag that gives the docs people a hint as to what you were
>> thinking when you added the tag. It’s simply a time saving measure on
>> our part, and sometimes a thing that saves a large amount of human time
>> needs to take a small amount of compute time. I don’t think that’s a big
>> ask, but again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
>> In short, I would rather remove the DocImpact facility entirely than try
>> and turn a tool designed for a completely different task to this
>> problem. However, as this is the first complaint I’ve seen about this
>> solution since starting working on this thorny problem nearly a year
>> ago, I can’t help but wonder if we’re overreacting? Do people genuinely
>> hate this solution enough that we need to go back to the drawing board?
> Yes. Because as I described it scuttles a whole other long term goal
> (which is being able to update commit messages and keep Jenkins votes).
> Voting based on commit messages is a thing we need to not be doing.
> You can score based on content in tree, just not commit messages.

OK, I wasn’t aware of that requirement.

In that case, I’m starting to think that DocImpact needs to simply be retired then …


Lana Brindley

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160106/e39f1dac/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160106/e39f1dac/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list