fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Mike Scherbakov <mscherbakov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OpenStack uses paste.openstack.org all the time, and I've heard issues with
how long content is stored there.


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Aleksandra Fedorova <
afedorova@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> I can not find the policy about how long data is stored there, but I doubt
> that pastebin service can be used as a longterm storage. If we don't want
> to lose logs and scripts data, the use of paste.o.o links for bug reports
> should be forbidden.
>
> Launchpad attachments are much more reliable even though less comfortable
> to use.
> On Aug 27, 2014 8:49 AM, "Mike Scherbakov" <mscherbakov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 on updating bug descriptions (not comments) about probability of
>> failure, and using paste.openstack.org more often.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko <
>> dborodaenko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Mike Scherbakov
>>> <mscherbakov@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > "confusing versioning in OpenStack patching" - if we didn't change
>>> puppet
>>> > manifests and Fuel/OpenStack reference architecture in next Fuel
>>> versions,
>>> > then it would be as simple as patching from 5.0 to 5.1. But it
>>> appeared to
>>> > be more complicated system than you would initially think of, so in
>>> general
>>> > 5.0.2 may not be equal to 5.1, that's where all things come up. If we
>>> had
>>> > OpenStack upgrades, then we could just say 5.0 -> 6.0 - easy.
>>>
>>> We may have had technical reasons to make this decision, but it still
>>> is confusing and negatively impacts UX. I agree that having an
>>> incomplete feature early is better than not having it at all until
>>> much later, as long as we don't stop working on it until it's complete
>>> and these small but annoying deficiencies are addressed. Our
>>> experience with technical debt so far is not very reassuring.
>>>
>>> > "issues with containers" - we have same issues with everything. Let's
>>> take
>>> > Galera, for example. It's just issues. We can question maturity of
>>> tools we
>>> > use, and here I'd agree - we spent too much fixing issues around
>>> Docker. At
>>> > the same time, if we were about taking our own journey with LXC, we
>>> would
>>> > likely spend even more time inventing our own bicycle.
>>>
>>> You're assuming that it was just Docker as a piece of software that is
>>> the primary cause of all our troubles with Fuel upgrades. Docker is
>>> only a small part of the a much large and much more intrusive design
>>> decision to use containers for upgrading Fuel (and also the design
>>> decision to use a different mechanism based on Puppet for patching
>>> OpenStack). I think we should question high-level design decisions
>>> like these more often, even after they are implemented.
>>>
>>> > Also, I'd like to ask everyone to provide
>>> > such information in every bug you report if possible (or if get this
>>> info
>>> > later, put comments): in many bug reports it is unclear to understand
>>> how
>>> > severe issue is.
>>>
>>> I think we should start updating bug description more often, so that
>>> you can find a summary of current state of the bug and of all relevant
>>> information from the description, without having to scroll through
>>> dozens of comments. We should also use paste.openstack.org more
>>> heavily and avoid pasting more than 1-2 lines of logs into bug
>>> description and comments, also to make it easier to find important
>>> bits in bugs history.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Scherbakov
>> #mihgen
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>


-- 
Mike Scherbakov
#mihgen