Open Stack

On 23/03/16 16:27 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:
>Bots are very handy for doing repetitive tasks, we agree on that.
>
>Bots also require permissions to execute certain actions, require
>maintenance to ensure they operate as expected and do create output
>which is music to some and noise to others. Said output is often
>archieved somewhere which requires additional decisions.
>
>This thread is intended to initiate a conversation about bots. So far we
>have seen developers want to use bots in Gerrit[0] and in IRC[1]. The
>conversation starts there but isn't limited to these tools if folks have
>usecases for other bots.
>
>I included an item on the infra meeting agenda for yesterday's meeting
>(April 22, 2016) and discovered there was enough interest[2] in a
>discussion to take it to the list, so here it is.
>
>So some items that have been raised thus far:
>- permissions: having a bot on gerrit with +2 +A is something we would
>like to avoid

To be honest, I wouldn't mind having a bot +2A on specific cases. An example
would be requirements syncs that have passed the gate or trasnlations. I
normally ninja-approve those and I don't really mind doing it but, I wouldn't
mind having those patches approved automatically since they don't really require
a review.

Flavio

>- "unsanctioned" bots (bots not in infra config files) in channels
>shared by multiple teams (meeting channels, the -dev channel)
>- forming a dependence on bots and expecting infra to maintain them ex
>post facto (example: bot soren maintained until soren didn't)
>- causing irritation for others due to the presence of an echoing bot
>which eventually infra will be asked or expected to mediate
>- duplication of features, both meetbot and purplebot log channels and
>host the archives in different locations
>- canonical bot doesn't get maintained
>
>It is possible that the bots that infra currently maintains have
>features of which folks are unaware, so if someone was willing to spend
>some time communicating those features to folks who like bots we might
>be able to satisfy their needs with what infra currently operates.
>
>Please include your own thoughts on this topic, hopefully after some
>discussion we can aggregate on some policy/steps forward.
>
>Thank you,
>Anita.
>
>
>[0]
>http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-infra/%23openstack-infra.2016-03-09.log.html#t2016-03-09T15:21:01
>[1]
>http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/089509.html
>[2]
>http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2016/infra.2016-03-22-19.02.log.html
>timestamp 19:53
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>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

-- 
@flaper87
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/20160324/3821d402/attachment.pgp>