[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

Flavio Percoco flavio at redhat.com
Wed Jan 20 21:53:37 UTC 2016

On 20/01/16 13:44 -0500, Steve Martinelli wrote:
>This is something I'd really like to see happen. It's an idea we've been
>tossing around for the Keystone project, or at least a release with minimal
>features, maybe 1 or 2. More comments in line
>Steve Martinelli
>Keystone PTL
>Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote on 2016/01/20 08:23:02 AM:
>> From: Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com>
>> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> Date: 2016/01/20 01:01 PM
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating
>> on the idea to move it forward
>> Greetings,
>> At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
>> cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started
>> discussing what
>> topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effort. One of the
>> things that was raised during this session is the need of having cycles to
>> stabilize projects. This was brought up by Robert Collins again in ameeting
>> the TC had right after the summit and no much has been done ever since.
>> Now, "stabilization Cycles" are easy to dream about but really hard to do and
>> enforce. Nonetheless, they are still worth a try or, at the very least, a
>> thought. I'll try to go through some of the issues and benefits a
>> stabilization
>> cycle could bring but bear in mind that the lists below are not exhaustive.
>> fact, I'd love for other folks to chime in and help building a case
>> in favor or
>> against this.
>> Negative(?) effects
>> ===================
>> - Project won't get new features for a period of time Economic impact on
>>   developers(?)
>> - It was mentioned that some folks receive bonuses for landed features
>This is a thing?! Really? I'm very surprised about this one, features should
>only be included in a project if they make sense strategically for the project.
>PTLs should -2 the spec if they feel it doesn't align with the project's
>direction. No?

The fact that people get bonuses doesn't mean the feature doesn't align with the
project. Come up w/ something useful, propose it and get it done. If it's in you
get X.

That said, I'm just guessing based on that single line that was brought up in
the meeting I linked. Whether that's true or not, we'll need someone to confirm
it (or not ;).

>> - Economic impact on companies/market because no new features were added (?)
>I'd argue this could be spun into a positive. We get enough grief about
>difficulty and complexity of OpenStack, by focusing on paying down technical
>debt, we likely going to addressing some of the issues that make things
>complex. We are actually listening to feedback instead of plowing ahead with
>features no one uses cause they're still on Juno.



>> - (?)
>> Positive effects
>> ================
>> - Focus on bug fixing
>> - Reduce review backlog
>> - Refactor *existing* code/features with cleanups
>> - Focus on multi-cycle features (if any) and complete those
>> - (?)
>> A stabilization cycle, as it was also discussed in the aforementioned
>> meeting[0], doesn't need to be all or nothing. For instance, it should be
>> perfectly fine for a project to say that a project would dedicate 50% of the
>> cycle to stabilization and the rest to complete some pending
>> features. Moreover,
>> each project is free to choose when/if a stabilization cycle would be good
>> it or not.
>> For example, the Glance team is currently working on refactoring the image
>> import workflow. This is a long term effort that will require at
>> least 2 cycles
>> to be completed. Furthermore, it's very likely these changes will
>> introduce bugs
>> and that will require further work. If the Glance team would decide
>> (this is not
>> an actual proposal... yet :) to use Newton as a stabilization cycle, the team
>> would be able to focus all its forces on fixing those bugs, completing the
>> feature and tackling other, long-term, pending issues. In the case of Glance,
>> this would impact *only glance* and not other projects under the Glance team
>> umbrella like glanceclient and glance_store. In fact, this would be a perfect
>> time for the glance team to dedicate time to improving glanceclient
>> and catch up
>> with the server side latest changes.
>> So, the above sounds quite vague, still but that's the idea. This
>> email is not a
>> formal proposal but a starting point to move this conversation
>> forward. Is this
>> something other teams would be interested in? Is this something some
>> teams would
>> be entirely against? Why?
>> From a governance perspective, projects are already empowered to do this and
>> they don't (and won't) need to be granted permission to have stabilization
>> cycles. However, the TC could work on formalizing this process so that teams
>> have a reference to follow when they want to have one. For example, we would
>> have to formalize how projects announce they want to have a
>> stabilization cycle
>> (I believe it should be done before the mid-term of the ongoing cycle).
>> Thoughts? Feedback?
>> Flavio
>> [0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2015/tc.
>> 2015-11-03-20.07.log.html (20:47:02)
>> --
>> @flaper87
>> Flavio Percoco
>> [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Steve Martinelli/Toronto/IBM]
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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

Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160120/2302a4f4/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list