Ok, no one says it so let me be the bad guy. <rant> Nothing will work unless the citrix department in california agrees. They have their in-house legacy proces to change and will not unless they can sell it easily upstream. So whether we make a grand uninfied proposal or take small steps doesn't matter, it must fit their internal political situation. This is very unhealthy. I am not saying that the objections coming from that group are unreasonable every time. Sometimes they were more then other times. I am even sure that they are working on improving as well but this is invisible to the rest of us. A mail every once in a while does not make this visible. The proces of improving the way we work is impaired by it. They to need to make small steps so we can see what is happening and where we are going. Even a grand proposal by Citrix California won't be accepted, because the change will be to big! </rant>
<frustrated conclusion> I made some small steps in improving during the 4.4.1 release process. These were largely ignored or reverted in the current branch. unless the current state of 4.5 happens to be very good we are in for a repeat of recent history. </frustrated conclusion> You know where to find me, Daan On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Mike Tutkowski < mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > Code reviews are great. > > However, we will need to change our behavior quite a bit if code is to make > it in within a reasonable amount of time as code reviews today often don't > get done in a timely fashion. > > In a volunteer community, it's hard to "assign" work (including code > reviews) to people (let alone expect it done on your schedule). > > This is, of course, different at most of our day jobs where managers are in > a position to make sure the community is responsive. > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I like the way Stephen split it. > > Here is my vote. > > +1 on using github pull requests. > > +1 on compulsory code reviews and PRs even for committers and CI build > pass > > before merging. > > +1 on merges from 4.5 to master and no individual commits(or > cherry-picks) > > to the branches > > +0 on RM for master and commits gated by him. I agree with Stephen that > > code reviewer should be doing the push. But, I am ok with RM doing > > it(assuming we have a volunteer ;) ). > > > > +1 on any changes independently. > > > > > > ~Rajani > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Turner < > stephen.tur...@citrix.com > > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > As I just said in the other thread -- but to repeat it here in the > > > PROPOSAL thread -- > > > > > > I am +1 on using github pull requests. > > > > > > I am +1 on all code changes being reviewed by a committer other than > the > > > author, as well as undergoing some automated CI testing, before the > pull > > > request is merged. > > > > > > I am +0 on only the master RM merging the pull request. I don't want > the > > > author to push the code, but I think the code reviewer could do this; > in > > > practice the RM will not be able to review everything again so is > likely > > to > > > rubber-stamp the results of the code review / automated testing. But I > > > could live with the master RM doing it. > > > > > > I am +1 on moving ahead with any of these parts individually, rather > than > > > waiting for everything to be in place before doing anything. > > > > > > -- > > > Stephen Turner > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com <javascript:;>] > > > Sent: 18 October 2014 10:00 > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit > > > > > > After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following proposal. > > > > > > [Proposal] > > > ---- > > > All commits come through github PR, *even* for committers. We declare a > > > moratorium period (agreed suspension of activity) during which direct > > > commit to master is forbidden. > > > Only the master RM is allowed to merge PR in master (we define a master > > > RM). If direct commit to master is done, master RM reverts without > > warning. > > > Same for 4.5 and 4.4. branches. > > > ---- > > > > > > This is drastic and I am sure some folks will not like it, but here is > my > > > justification for such a measure: > > > > > > [Reasons]: > > > ---- > > > Our commit and release processes have so far been based on the idea > that > > > development happens on master and that a release branch is cut from > > master > > > (unstable development branch). Then a different set of community > members > > > harden the release branch, QA and bring it to GA level. During that > time > > > development keeps on going in master. > > > > > > This is an OK process if we have the luxury of having a QA team and can > > > cope with split personality of being developers and release managers. > > > > > > My point of view is that as a community we cannot afford such a split > > > brain organization and our experience overt the last year proves my > point > > > (delayed release date, broken builds, features merged without > warning...) > > > > > > We can avoid this by cutting a release branch from a stable one (from > the > > > start), then as you (Daan) have mentioned several times, fix bugs in > the > > > release branch and merge them back in the stable source of the release > > (be > > > it master). > > > > > > Feature development need to be done outside master, period. Not only > for > > > non-committers but also for committers. And merge request need to be > > > called. This will help review and avoid surprises. > > > > > > New git workflow were proposed and shutdown, mostly calling for better > CI > > > to solve quality issues. CI will not solve our quality issues alone. We > > > need to better police ourselves. > > > > > > To avoid long discussions, I propose this simple but drastic measure. > We > > > move all our commits to github PR until 4.5 is out, this stands for > > > committers and non-committers, direct commits (especially to master) > > would > > > be reverted immediately. > > > ---- > > > > > > Our development and release process is broken, we cannot continue like > > > this, let's fix it. > > > > > > [1] http://markmail.org/thread/xeliefp3oleq3g54 > > > > > > -sebastien > > > > > > > > -- > *Mike Tutkowski* > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > o: 303.746.7302 > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > -- Daan
