Open Stack

On 2/14/19 5:47 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> Rethinking my last email... Go with just release notes, no need for a bug.

The only thing we lose with this would be a place to see every commit
that deprecated or removed something in a release (short of doing a git
blame on the release note). We could still do this with bugs and we
could drive the tracking with Partial-Bug in each commit message. We
need to make sure to formally close the bug however at the end of the
release if we don't close it with a commit using Closes-Bug. In my
experience, we rarely stage all these commits at once. They're usually
proposed haphazardly throughout the release as people have cycles.

>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 06:46 Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com
> <mailto:morgan.fainberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I would go for one tracking bug per cycle or we could also just
>     lean on the release notes instead of having a direct bug. 
>
>     On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 06:07 Colleen Murphy <colleen at gazlene.net
>     <mailto:colleen at gazlene.net> wrote:
>
>         On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, at 8:56 PM, Lance Bragstad wrote:
>         > Over the last couple of years, our launchpad blueprints have
>         grown
>         > unruly [0] (~77 blueprints a few days ago). The majority of
>         them were in
>         > "New" status, unmaintained, and several years old (some
>         dating back to
>         > 2013). Even though we've been using specifications [1] for
>         several
>         > years, people still get confused when they see conflicting
>         or inaccurate
>         > blueprints. After another person tripped over a duplicate
>         blueprint this
>         > week, cmurphy, vishakha, and I decided to devote some
>         attention to it.
>         > We tracked the work in an etherpad [2] - so we can still
>         find links to
>         > things.
>         >
>         > First, if you are the owner of a blueprint that was marked as
>         > "Obsolete", you should see a comment on the whiteboard that
>         includes a
>         > reason or justification. If you'd like to continue the
>         discussion about
>         > your feature request, please open a specification against the
>         > openstack/keystone-specs repository instead. For historical
>         context,
>         > when we converted to specifications, we were only supposed
>         to create
>         > blueprints for tracking the work after the specification was
>         merged.
>         > Unfortunately, I don't think this process was ever written
>         down, which
>         > I'm sure attributed to blueprint bloat over the years.
>         >
>         > Second, if you track work regularly using blueprints or plan on
>         > delivering something for Stein, please make sure your
>         blueprint in
>         > Launchpad is approved and tracked to the appropriate release
>         (this
>         > should already be done, but feel free to double check). The
>         team doesn't
>         > plan on switching processes for feature tracking
>         mid-release. Instead,
>         > we're going to continue tracking feature work with launchpad
>         blueprints
>         > for the remainder of Stein. Currently, the team is leaning
>         heavily
>         > towards using RFE bug reports for new feature work, which we
>         can easily
>         > switch to in Train. The main reason for this switch is that
>         bug comments
>         > are immutable with better timestamps while blueprint
>         whiteboards are
>         > editable to anyone and not timestamped very well. We already
>         have
>         > tooling in place to update bug reports based on commit
>         messages and that
>         > will continue to work for RFE bug reports.
>         >
>         > Third, any existing blueprints that aren't targeted for
>         Stein but are
>         > good ideas, should be converted to RFE bug reports. All
>         context from the
>         > blueprint will need to be ported to the bug report. After a
>         sufficient
>         > RFE bug report is opened, the blueprint should be marked as
>         "Superseded"
>         > or "Obsolete" *with* a link to the newly opened bug. While
>         this is
>         > tedious, there aren't nearly as many blueprints open now as
>         there were a
>         > couple of days ago. If you're interested in assisting with
>         this effort,
>         > let me know.
>         >
>         > Fourth, after moving non-Stein blueprints to RFE bugs, only
>         Stein
>         > related blueprints should be open in launchpad. Once Stein
>         is released,
>         > we'll go ahead disable keystone blueprints.
>         >
>         > Finally, we need to overhaul a portion of our contributor
>         guide to
>         > include information around this process. The goal should be
>         to make that
>         > documentation clear enough that we don't have this issue
>         again. I plan
>         > on getting something up for review soon, but I don't have
>         anything
>         > currently, so if someone is interested in taking a shot at
>         writing this
>         > document, please feel free to do so. Morgan has a patch up
>         to replace
>         > blueprint usage with RFE bugs in the specification template [3].
>         >
>         > We can air out any comments, questions, or concerns here in
>         the thread.
>
>         What should we do about tracking "deprecated-as-of-*" and
>         "removed-as-of-*" work? I never liked how this was done with
>         blueprints but I'm not sure how we would do it with bugs. One
>         tracking bug for all deprecated things in a cycle? One bug for
>         each? A Trello/Storyboard board or etherpad? Do we even need
>         to track it with an external tool - perhaps we can just keep a
>         running list in a release note that we add to over the cycle?
>

I agree. The solution that is jumping out at me is to track one bug for
deprecated things and one for removed things per release, so similar to
what we do now with blueprints. We would have to make sure we tag
commits properly, so they are all tracked in the bug report. Creating a
bug for everything that is deprecated or removed would be nice for
capturing specific details, but it also feels like it will introduce
more churn to the process.

I guess I'm assuming there are users that like to read every commit that
has deprecated something or removed something in a release. If we don't
need to operate under that assumption, then a release note would do just
fine and I'm all for simplifying the process.

>
>         Thanks for tackling this cleanup work.
>
>         >
>         > Thanks,
>         >
>         > Lance
>         >
>         > [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone
>         > [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/
>         > [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-blueprint-cleanup
>         > [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/625282/
>         > Email had 1 attachment:
>         > + signature.asc
>         >   1k (application/pgp-signature)
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190214/b20dcc62/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190214/b20dcc62/attachment-0001.sig>