openstack team mailing list archive

[Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 10:51 +0200, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
> Hi Mark, thanks for your answer.
> 
> On 05/03/2012 10:25 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 14:37 +0200, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
> >> I recently submitted a few fixes to the test suite in various components
> >> of openstack.
> >
> > Thanks for that!
> >
> >
> >> These fixes are being merged in master, but the code remains broken in
> >> the stable/essex branch. Review requests for  stable/essex either get
> >> rejected or stuck in limbo because it seems that people don't know
> >> what to do about them.
> >
> > We're talking about this?
> >
> >    https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6619/
> >
> 
> and this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/983800/ (comment #2)

Ah, ok. Thanks for bringing this one up

[..]

> >    - And finally, I think it's sane for downstreams to run the unit
> >      tests. As you say, it can catch issues where downstream is using a
> >      different version of a library than upstream. If a downstream
> >      uncovers an issue like this, fixes it on master with a unit test
> >      and backports the fix and unit test to stable, I think that's great
> >      too.
> 
> Well you think it's great and I think it's great, but somehow we don't 
> agree with one another? This is what I did. Uncovered a bug in the tests 
> on a different version/configuration, submitted the fix to master -> it 
> got accepted. Submitted the fix to stable -> it got rejected. Or are you 
> saying that these fixes are not important because they're only testsuite 
> fixes?
> 
> Finally, I'm fine with any attitude to backporting test fixes (though I 
> strongly prefer backporting them), but let's please make it deliberate 
> and clear and then document it on the wiki page. This is why I started 
> this discussion.

Cool, no problem.

Again, in this case, there are extenuating circumstances :-)

Keystone only became core in essex, so it's new to the stable branch
process and the stable-maint team haven't paid it much attention yet.
And, in any case, we're all still finding our way with the stable branch
process generally.

So ... I agree the fix for bug #983800 should go into essex. I've
commented in the bug. I'll backport it myself soon unless you get there
first.

Cheers,
Mark.