fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Miroslav Anashkin <manashkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please fork stackforge repo to your account first and use the forked version


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobrelia@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  On 12/11/2013 01:35 PM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> Yes, I've tried git push -u origin foo_branch and I've got
> ERROR: Permission to stackforge/fuel-web(library).git denied to bogdando.
>
>
>
>  --
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 

*Kind Regards*

*Miroslav Anashkin**L2 support engineer**,*
*Mirantis Inc.*
*+7(495)640-4944 (office receptionist)*
*+1(650)587-5200 (office receptionist, call from US)*
*35b, Bld. 3, Vorontsovskaya St.*
*Moscow**, Russia, 109147.*

www.mirantis.com

manashkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx