[tc][stable] Changing stable branch policy
openstack at nemebean.com
Thu Nov 21 14:51:33 UTC 2019
On 11/21/19 7:46 AM, Erno Kuvaja wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 7:50 PM Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com
> <mailto:openstack at nemebean.com>> wrote:
> On 11/20/19 11:08 AM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> > ---- On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 08:21:29 -0600 Matt Riedemann
> <mriedemos at gmail.com <mailto:mriedemos at gmail.com>> wrote ----
> > > On 11/20/2019 1:18 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> > > > Because the core stable team is necessarily not as familiar
> with the
> > > > review/backport history of contributors in every project as the
> > > > individual project stable team is with contributors in each
> > >
> > > This is assuming that each project has a stable core team
> already, which
> > > a lot don't, that's why we get a lot of "hi I'm the PTL du
> jour on
> > > project X now please make me stable core even though I've
> never reviewed
> > > any stable branch changes before".
> > >
> > > With Tony more removed these days and I myself not wanting to
> vet every
> > > one of these "add me to the stable core team" requests, I'm
> more or less
> > > OK with the proposal so that it removes me as a bottleneck.
> That might
> > > mean people merge things on stable branches for their
> projects that
> > > don't follow the guidelines but so be it. If it's a problem
> > > they'll hear about it from their consumers, but if the
> project is in
> > > such maintenance mode anyway that they can break the stable
> > > then they might not have many external consumers to complain
> > > Either way I don't need to be involved.
> > This is the main problem going to be and I am worried about it.
> We had the great stable policies
> > with a dedicated team maintaining it well. 'great' and 'well' I
> am writing from the user perspective
> > where they get applicable backport which does not break their
> within-in-release upgrade.
> > If backport is delayed it is fine for them as compared to
> breaking backport.
> Is it? Important backports being delayed due to lack of stable
> still leaves consumers with a broken piece of software.
> I also think this is a bit of a false dichotomy. Nobody is suggesting
> that we start approving backports willy-nilly, just that we lower the
> barrier to entry for people who want to help with stable branch
> I would hope we can trust our teams to be responsible with their
> stable-maint list and not just start handing out +2 to anyone with a
> pulse. If not, I think we have a bigger problem, but let's cross that
> bridge if and when we come to it.
> > OpenStack has a very well known problem of inconsistent APIs.
> Inconsistency is from
> > usage, interop, debug perspective. All projects define its own
> definition of APIs (new API,
> > changes, discoverability etc) which we say it is fine because
> that project wants to do that way
> > but the user faces the problem. We have not solved this problem
> yet due to various reasons.
> > IMO, this problem could have solved or minimized if we had
> "Single mandatory way to write
> > and maintain your API and central team to very that" from
> *starting* instead of project
> > decide its own way or recommended guidelines only.
> > The same case is for stable backports, we have a "Single
> mandatory way to backport the changes
> > and central team to verify that". And due to that, OpenStack is
> more stable on the backports business.
> > Why we are changing that?
> This does not change the stable policy, and the existence of
> project-specific stable-maint teams means there was never a single
> central team reviewing all stable backports. Even if there had been,
> it's pretty clear that model doesn't work given the staffing
> we are facing in almost every area, and which are only going to get
> worse after this cycle.
> The proposal removes some inflexible process that currently prevents
> contributors from becoming stable maintainers, it does _not_ mean we
> stop expecting stable maintainers to understand the stable policy.
> > Stable backport is more of maintaining the quality and no-break
> things than merging a large amount
> > of backports and *fast*.
> > -gmann
> > >
> > > So sure, +1 from me on the proposal given nova can still do
> what it's
> > > already been doing with a specific stable maint core team ACL
> in Gerrit.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > >
> Sounds like we're back in a spot where Stable Maintenance team probably
> shouldn't be a thing then and I think this time around I do agree.
> Perhaps we should just discontinue the Stable Maintenance group all
> together (not just as part of stable reviewers and moderators of in
> project stable maintenance groups) and subject our Stable Branch
> policies and guidelines directly under governance. Obviously unless
> we're planning to put the bolt on TCs head as well being unscalable
> group most don't care about. (We might even get some folks who care
> about stable branches and releases to be interested about TC.)
I don't have a strong opinion about this, other than that it's important
to have someone people can go to for questions about stable backports.
If that's a stable team or some other entity is irrelevant to me, but
unusual situations do come up and the stable team was extremely helpful
with the one I asked about recently.
> If nothing else, the good part of this discussion is the message that we
> have amazing flood of people being interested to join the stable
> maintenance to overwhelm the current Stable Maint team with requests. So
> lets remove the clearly toxic vetting process and get these people to work!
> - jokke_
More information about the openstack-discuss