fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Oleg Gelbukh <ogelbukh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Looks like fuel.config already have this configuration actually:

https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/modules/openstack_project/files/gerrit/acls/stackforge/fuel.config#n5

Did you check if you actually can create a branch?

--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobrelia@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  On 12/11/2013 11:52 AM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Looks like the openstack-ci/config repo is about projects management, not
> its WIP branches - the only reference for branch named "feature/ec"
> (mentioned in
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-July/012102.html)
> I've found is:
> ./modules/gerritbot/files/gerritbot_channel_config.yaml:
> openstack-swift:
>     events:
>       - patchset-created
>       - change-merged
>       - x-vrif-minus-2
>     projects:
>       - openstack/swift
>       - openstack/swift-bench
>       - openstack/python-swiftclient
>     branches:
>       - master
>       - feature/ec
>
> So, it is still unclear how to create new branches for review...
> I will consult with #openstack-infra anyway, thank you.
> I believe we should have this question clearly elaborated for our R&D
> teams.
>
>
>
>  --
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>