fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Oleg Gelbukh <ogelbukh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bogdan,

In OpenStack CI, that is configured in openstack-ci/config repository. You
have to add certain lines to gerrit access lists configuration
(modules/openstack_project/files/gerrit/acls/stackforge/fuel.config) for
your project there:

[access refs/*]
create = group <your-project-name>-core

or something like that. Please, ask at openstack-infra ML or
#openstack-infra for more precise advice.

--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobrelia@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  On 12/11/2013 11:06 AM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote:
>
> Bogdan,
>
>  You might be interested in the approach taken by Swift team for
> long-term development effort of erasure coding storage option:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-July/012102.html
>
> Thank you, the approach is good indeed. Do we have a rights or work-flow
> for creating WIP branches of our main repos?
>
>
>  --
> Best regards,
> Oleg Gelbukh
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobrelia@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>>
>> On 12/10/2013 09:14 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We still have a few pain points left in our development process that I
>>> think are easy to fix with a bunch of simple rules. I think releasing
>>> 4.0 will be less painful if we try to address these.
>>>
>>> 1. Branch management for maintenance releases
>>>
>>> We already had this discussion during 3.2.1 release cycle, and agreed
>>> to follow the approach that is in line with what OpenStack and most
>>> other free software projects are following. Still, I think we should
>>> do better at actually following the process we agreed to.
>>>
>>> To see how good we were at following it for 3.2.1, open two terminal
>>> windows and run:
>>>
>>> git whatchanged 3.2..3.2-fixes
>>> git whatchanged 3.2..master
>>>
>>> and for each commit in 3.2-fixes, try to find a matching fix in
>>> master. Last time I checked there were still many cases where bugfixes
>>> were merged to 3.2-fixes before (or even without) merging them to
>>> master. Did anyone actually check that we're not missing any important
>>> fixes from 3.2.1 in 4.0?
>>>
>>> We should create a new stable/4.0 branch as soon as 4.0 code freeze is
>>> announced (ideally, the announcement itself should direct committers
>>> to the new branch). Reviewers should REJECT all commits to stable/4.0
>>> that have not been merged into master, unless a justification is
>>> provided in the COMMIT MESSAGE.
>>>
>>  Can Jenkins help us by -1 such patches?
>> I.e. Jenkins could put -1 to any patch targeted for non-master, unless
>> its commits were found in master.
>>
>>
>>> 2. Management and code review of feature development branches
>>>
>>> Yet another thing that everyone seems to agree on is that huge
>>> long-lived feature branches with many commits and thousands of lines
>>> worth of changes are evil and dangerous. Luckily, the move to Gerrit
>>> will make it hard enough to maintain and merge multi-commit branches,
>>> and will push people towards committing and merging changes in smaller
>>> self-sufficient chunks.
>>>
>>  That should we do for long running researches, such as HA improvements
>> (started at 3.1, targeted to 4.1 only), or torrent based provisioning?
>> Should we melt down hundreds of commits into a single patch in WIP branch,
>> before submitting new feature to review?
>>
>>
>>> A recent negative example is the fuel-library pull request #911 that
>>> has merged 104 duplicate commits from ancient alternative history into
>>> master, instead of simply rebasing a single commit. The only way to
>>> prevent something like this from happening is to summarily reject
>>> changes that are too large and/or contain messy revision history.
>>>
>>  Jenkins could come to help here as well. E.g. -1, if any commit in PR are
>> already present in target branch's history.
>>
>>
>>> The other side of the same problem is holding back small reasonable
>>> changes for too long, placing unnecessary burden on authors to keep
>>> rebasing their change on top of other changes that got merged earlier.
>>>
>>> For example, my own fuel-docs pull request #67 sat unreviewed for a
>>> week only to be obsoleted by the move of the repo to StackForge (after
>>> being obsoleted couple more times by changes that were merged ahead of
>>> it). I suspect most other developers had similar experiences. On top
>>> of obvious frustration, holding a change back tempts the author to
>>> keep piling changes onto the same request instead of creating a new
>>> review request on top of updated master for their next set of changes.
>>> To use the same example, most of the third commit on #67 should really
>>> have been a separate pull request.
>>>
>>> The fix is once again rather obvious: when going through reviews,
>>> start with fixes for critical bugs, then go through remaining reviews
>>> starting with the least recently updated ones. Don't merge a review
>>> request if there's an older review request that can also be merged.
>>>
>>> I'm using this link to see all our outstanding review requests:
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project
>>> :^stackforge/fuel-.*,n,z
>>>
>>> Right now I see that there are review requests that have +1 from CI
>>> and from reviewers (meaning they can be merged) sitting unchanged
>>> since Nov 25, and a few unreviewed requests going as far back as Nov
>>> 3. We shouldn't have a request sit untouched by an approver for more
>>> than a week, let alone a month. If there's a any reason you don't want
>>> to merge it, give it -1 and explain. Otherwise, there's no reason not
>>> to give it +2. If you have time to review and merge a newer request,
>>> you have time for that older one, too.
>>>
>>> 3. Bugs triage
>>>
>>> Moving our bug tracking to public launchpad was an important step
>>> towards opening up our development process, now we should improve
>>> visibility of our bugs triage and release management processes. In
>>> addition to announcing target release dates, we should also have well
>>> defined release criteria (for example, no critical bugs affecting the
>>> upcoming release, no more than 5 bugs with high importantce, etc.),
>>> and documented rules on how to set importance of a bug. We don't have
>>> to be rigid and beaurocratic about it, but having documented criteria
>>> will help all participants of the process prioritize their own work
>>> and understand how it fits into the state of the whole project. It
>>> will also help avoid situations like missing an important bugfix in a
>>> release, by forcing us to review priorities of all open bugs before
>>> announcing a release.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>  Best regards,
>> Bogdan Dobrelya,
>> Researcher TechLead, Mirantis, Inc.
>> +38 (066) 051 07 53
>> Skype bogdando_at_yahoo.com
>> 38, Lenina ave.
>> Kharkov, Ukraine
>> www.mirantis.com
>> www.mirantis.ru
>> bdobrelia@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bogdan Dobrelya,
> Researcher TechLead, Mirantis, Inc.
> +38 (066) 051 07 53
> Skype bogdando_at_yahoo.com
> 38, Lenina ave.
> Kharkov, Ukrainewww.mirantis.comwww.mirantis.rubdobrelia@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>