Open Stack

On 16.08.2017 18:40, Alex Schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Markus Zoeller
> <mzoeller at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 16.08.2017 02:59, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alex Schultz <aschultz at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>
>>>> I'm proposing that in order to track tech debt that we're adding in as
>>>> part of development that we create a way to track these items and not
>>>> approve them without a bug (and a reference to said bug)[0].  Please
>>>> take a moment to review the proposed policy and comment. I would like
>>>> to start this for the queens cycle.
>>>
>>> I also think we should frequently review the status of these bugs.
>>> Maybe unofficially from time to time and officially during milestone-3
>>> of each cycle.
>>>
>>> I like the proposal so far, thanks.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, for another (in-house) project, I create a page called "technical
>> debt" in the normal docs directory of the project. That way, I can add
>> the "reminder" with the same commit which introduced the technical debt
>> in the code. Similar to what OpenStack already does with the
>> release-notes. The list of technical debt items is then always visible
>> in the docs and not a query in the bug-tracker with tags (or something
>> like that).
>> Just an idea, maybe it applicable here.
>>
> 
> Yea that would a good choice if we only had a single or a low number
> of projects under the tripleo umbrella. The problem is we have many
> different components which contribute to tech debt so storing it in
> each repo would be hard to track. I proposed bugs because it would be
> a singular place for reporting. For projects with fewer deliverable
> storing it like release notes is a good option.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> 

No biggie. A single project was my implicit assumption, that's true.
Wish you good luck.

-- 
Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z)

>> --
>> Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z)
>>
>>>> A real world example of where this would beneficial would be the
>>>> workaround we had for buggy ssh[1]. This patch was merged 6 months ago
>>>> to work around an issue in ssh that was recently fixed. However we
>>>> would most likely never have remembered to revert this. It was only
>>>> because someone[2] spotted it and mentioned it that it is being
>>>> reverted now.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494044/
>>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/6e8e27488da31b3b282fe1ce5e07939b3fa11b2f,n,z
>>>> [2] Thanks pabelanger
>>>>