[tc][stable] Changing stable branch policy
gmann at ghanshyammann.com
Wed Nov 20 17:19:03 UTC 2019
---- On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:58:12 -0600 Mohammed Naser <mnaser at vexxhost.com> wrote ----
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 6:16 AM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> > Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I am still finding difficult to understand the change and how it will solve the current problem.
> > >
> > > The current problem is:
> > > * Fewer contributors in the stable-maintenance team (core stable team and project side stable team)
> > > which is nothing but we have fewer contributors who understand the stable policies.
> > >
> > > * The stable policies are not the problem so we will stick with current stable policies across all the projects.
> > > Stable policies have to be maintained at single place for consistency in backports across projects.
> > > [...]
> > I don't think that this the problem this change wants to solve.
> > Currently the stable-core team is perceived as a bottleneck to getting
> > more people into project-specific stable teams, or keeping those teams
> > membership up to date. As a result stable maintenance is still seen in
> > some teams as an alien thing, rather than an integral team duty.
> > I suspect that by getting out of the badge-granting game, stable-core
> > could focus more on stable policy definition and education, and review
> > how well or bad each team does on the stable front. Because reviewing
> > backports for stable branch suitability is just one part of doing stable
> > branch right -- the other is to actively backport relevant patches.
> > Personally, the main reason I support this change is that we have too
> > much "ask for permission" things in OpenStack today, something that was
> > driven by a code-review-for-everything culture. So the more we can
> > remove the need to ask for permission to do some work, the better.
> For context, I thought I'd gather my thoughts to explain the idea best and
> woke up to this well summarized email by Thierry. I agree with this and the
> intention is indeed what Thierry is mentioning here.
I can understand your point and for some area I agree but not for stable policies case :).
IMO, "ask for permission" is good when the stability of the software come into pic. For any
proprietary software development we have a lot of "ask for permission" from the various team like
QA, Requirement verification, Audit, patching up the fixes on production. Those are
mainly to maintain the quality and stability of the software. If we give all the power of deciding all these
things to a developer then you can imagine the situation.
I know we have to trust the developer in Open Source to maintain all these areas in their code but
that could be easy if OpenStack could have been a single software project. Because OpenStack is
~50 projects, our main challenge is to maintain the consistency among them via centric team to
enforce and verify the key area like stability etc.
It is not easy to maintain a centric team especially when OpenStack facing the less contributors issue.
but as long as stable policies things are completely broken I think we should not change it.
> > --
> > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
More information about the openstack-discuss