[openstack-dev] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

Thomas Goirand zigo at debian.org
Tue Mar 15 13:45:36 UTC 2016

On 03/11/2016 12:45 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-03-10 22:05:00 +0000 (+0000), Tristan Cacqueray wrote:
>> Projects such as Openstack UX, Packaging Deb and i18n do not have active
>> contributions we can collect from git repos listed as project
>> deliverables. For these projects, how can the election officials
>> validate PTL candidacy and what would be the electorate roll in case of
>> an election ?
> The electorate rolls for project-teams without any
> deliverables/repos end up being limited to the "extra-atc" entries
> for them. For example, the I18N team has done an excellent job of
> providing a curated list of active translators, rendered at:
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/i18n.html#extra-atcs
> I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they
> probably also don't need a PTL?
> Packaging-Deb is the only one I see in an especially strange state
> at the moment: it has one existing repo (the rest are phantoms which
> were never created) with two Gerrit changes, both owned by the
> team's sole code contributor (based on our traditional process of
> enumerating Gerrit change owners)... Congratulations, Monty, on your
> new de facto PTL-ship!
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools
> Obviously, we'll need the TC to step in on unusual corner cases with
> inactive/newly-minted teams, such as this one.

Hi there!

First, I'm surprised that nobody got in touch with me directly about
this first, before this thread happens. But never mind, I'll explain
what happened here.

The project can still be considered at the same state as it was 6 months
ago. Ie: it's not started yet on OpenStack infra, but alive and working
outside of it. The reason is simple: we still don't have a Debian image
to work with within OpenStack infra, and even less the necessary tooling
to build packages. I hope this will change in Newton, so please leave
the project as it is.

Longer version:

To build packages on Debian, we need a Debian image to work with on
OpenStack infra. I've been told to do it on the Ubuntu image, but I
don't think that's viable, as I also run tempest on it to validate the
packaging, and that runs on top of Debian (I haven't tested it on
Ubuntu). I don't mind to *also* work on it on Ubuntu, but my priority
and motivation here is Debian mostly.

What's going on with the Debian image:
After Tokyo, I've been told by a few persons from infra, that I'd get
help. This help never came, so I started a CR to add the Debian image.
As I didn't know well enough the OpenStack infra and DIB, it wasn't done
well, and Igor Belikov took it over.

The review which is currently stuck is that one:

It was supposed to be waiting on that one:

It's been nearly 3 months now that we're still stuck there.

Though Greg appeared to be busy (personal reasons), and couldn't work on
#211859, recently, Igor Belikov (who kindly took over #264726 which I
couldn't do myself) wrote that, thanks to a commit from Monty in DIB, we
could get rid of the #211859 depends. I'm still waiting on Igor to
un-depend #211859, so we can get going. Hopefully, we'll get the Debian
image to work before the Austin summit.

The plan for the future:
Once we finally get a Debian image, then we'll be able to add jobs to
actually build packages. Most of the scripting is already written and
used in that Jenkins which we're using, so it shouldn't be too hard to
figure out. Once I get the idea on how to hook the build scripts, it
should be a lot more easy for me to write it. At least a lot more easy
than the DIB elements.

And then store the resulting artifacts somewhere on infra, so that other
packages can (build-)depends on them. There, I'll need also some help
from the infra team, to see how this can be done.

As you see, all of the issues aren't on the packaging itself, but just
on understanding how infra works, and how to be setup.

Where's the commits?
Because there's nothing to test the commits against (ie: packages aren't
even built in upstream infra), then it makes very little sense to push
changes to the OpenStack gerrit. Instead, all has been done as we used
to, within the git on alioth.debian.org. Once a commit is pushed, it
triggers a package build (in both Jessie and Trusty) in the Jenkins
servers sponsored by Mirantis, with the result published on IRC (in
#debian-openstack-commits on OFTC). That's exactly what we hoped to get
away from, though this continues to work, and that's the only thing
we've got. And there, I understand everything, and have root access on
the servers.

If you consider git commit statistics there, then it's FAR from being
zero commits. There's in fact commits every day on it. If we want to
gather stats there, then that's a very good starting point.

As much as I can tell by memory, there are commits from:
- myself (by far, the top committer) / Mirantis
- Corey Bryant / Canonical
- James Page / Canonical
- Igor Udovichenko Mirantis
- Ondřej Nový (who took over Swift maintenance) /
- David Della Vecchia / Canonical

I'm hereby proposing this list of voters, if nobody objects. If I forgot
anyone, let me know.

Of course, we could have made silly commits, just to push stuff we're
doing on git.debian.org within OpenStack's gerrit, and have stats there.
But how useful would that have been? Just to keep it clean, and no
questions asked, for the PTL election? I thought it was useless to do
so, so I didn't, hoping that everyone would understand.

Over the last 6 months, I have found that we're doing more and more a
collective work, even if it's not visible on OpenStack infra (yet).

Removing the packaging-deb project?
On 03/12/2016 12:11 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> My take is that those teams do not need to be an official project team
> either. We now require some activity before approving project teams,
> but packaging-deb passed before that requirement.

If you consider only the OpenStack gerrit, that's probably truth. But
IMO it would be a travesty to do so.

> It was approved 7 months ago and still no sign of activity

If we had been moving on with upstream infra, we'd be already using it.
But I don't really understand how it works myself, and even with a lot
of motivation, there's not much I could do alone. Hopefully, we'll get
more people involved during the Newton cycle.

> so it's not completely
> crazy to kick it back to non-official status (especially now that it
> doesn't trigger any repository rename).

Please don't. It took over 5 months to get it, and to be allowed to
create the initial Git repository under the OpenStack namespace, with
others replying to the project-config code review that we should be
waiting on the TC's decision first. I don't want to have this happen
again, that'd be really too much of a loss of time.

It's taking a (really too) long time to be setup properly with the
Debian image and build infrastructure. I'm aware of it, and I hope we
can fix this during the Newton cycle. Though a lot of teams are waiting
on this project. Puppet OpenStack wants to gate on what we'll be
producing, and so is Fuel. The plan is that MOS guys will also do more
work over there using Gerrit, if we have something usable.

Please allow us to make it happen.

I hope that everyone understands the situation, and I hope that the
proposal to have Monty hijacking the project will remain a joke.

Oh, and if it wasn't clear: I'm again proposing myself as a PTL for the
project, since I don't think anyone else will want to stand.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list