Open Stack

Inline

On 08/13/2018 08:40 PM, Julia Kreger wrote:
> Greetings fellow ironicans!
> 
> As many of you might know an openstack/ironic-staging-drivers[1]
> repository exists. What most might not know is that it was
> intentionally created outside of ironic's governance[2].
> 
> At the time it was created ironic was moving towards removing drivers
> that did not meet our third-party CI requirement[3] to be in-tree. The
> repository was an attempt to give a home to what some might find
> useful or where third party CI is impractical or cost-prohibitive and
> thus could not be officially part of Ironic the service. There was
> hope that drivers could land in ironic-staging-drivers and possibly
> graduate to being moved in-tree with third-party CI. As our community
> has evolved we've not stopped and revisited the questions.
> 
> With our most recent release over, I believe we need to ask ourselves
> if we should consider moving ironic-staging-drivers into our
> governance.

Not voting on this, since I'm obviously biased. Consider me +0 :)

> 
> Over the last couple of releases several contributors have found
> themselves trying to seek out two available reviewers to merge even
> trivial fixes[4]. Due to the team being so small this was no easy
> task. As a result, I'm wondering why not move the repository into
> governance, grant ironic-core review privileges upon the repository,
> and maintain the purpose and meaning of the repository. This would
> also result in the repository's release becoming managed via the
> release management process which is a plus.

Strictly speaking, nothing prevents us from granting ironic-core +2 on it right 
now. It's a different question whether they'll actually review it. We need a 
commitment from >50% cores to review it more or less regularly, otherwise we'll 
end up in the same situation.

> 
> We could then propose an actual graduation process and help alleviate
> some of the issues where driver code is iterated upon for long periods
> of time before landing. At the same time I can see at least one issue
> which is if we were to do that, then we would also need to manage
> removal through the same path.

I don't think we really "need to", but we certainly can. Now that I think that 
we could use ironic-staging-drivers as an *actual* staging area for new drivers, 
I'm starting to lean towards +1 on this whole idea.

This still leaves some drivers that will never get a CI.

> 
> I know there are concerns over responsibility in terms of code
> ownership and quality, but I feel like we already hit such issues[5],
> like those encountered when Dmitry removed classic drivers[6] from the
> repository and also encountered issues just prior to the latest
> release[7][8].

Well, yes, I personally have to care about this repository anyway.

Dmitry

> 
> This topic has come up in passing at PTGs and most recently on IRC[9],
> and I think we ought to discuss it during our next weekly meeting[10].
> I've gone ahead and added an item to the agenda, but we can also
> discuss via email.
> 
> -Julia
> 
> [1]: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/project-config/tree/gerrit/projects.yaml#n4571
> [2]: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/ironic-staging-drivers/tree/README.rst#n16
> [3]: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/approved/third-party-ci.html
> [4]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/548943/
> [5]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/541916/
> [6]: https://review.openstack.org/567902
> [7]: https://review.openstack.org/590352
> [8]: https://review.openstack.org/590401
> [9]: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-ironic/%23openstack-ironic.2018-08-09.log.html#t2018-08-09T11:55:27
> [10]: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic#Agenda_for_next_meeting
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>