On 16.08.2017 18:40, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Markus Zoeller > <mzoel...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> On 16.08.2017 02:59, Emilien Macchi wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alex Schultz <aschu...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> Hey folks, >>>> >>>> I'm proposing that in order to track tech debt that we're adding in as >>>> part of development that we create a way to track these items and not >>>> approve them without a bug (and a reference to said bug)[0]. Please >>>> take a moment to review the proposed policy and comment. I would like >>>> to start this for the queens cycle. >>> >>> I also think we should frequently review the status of these bugs. >>> Maybe unofficially from time to time and officially during milestone-3 >>> of each cycle. >>> >>> I like the proposal so far, thanks. >>> >> >> FWIW, for another (in-house) project, I create a page called "technical >> debt" in the normal docs directory of the project. That way, I can add >> the "reminder" with the same commit which introduced the technical debt >> in the code. Similar to what OpenStack already does with the >> release-notes. The list of technical debt items is then always visible >> in the docs and not a query in the bug-tracker with tags (or something >> like that). >> Just an idea, maybe it applicable here. >> > > Yea that would a good choice if we only had a single or a low number > of projects under the tripleo umbrella. The problem is we have many > different components which contribute to tech debt so storing it in > each repo would be hard to track. I proposed bugs because it would be > a singular place for reporting. For projects with fewer deliverable > storing it like release notes is a good option. > > Thanks, > -Alex >
No biggie. A single project was my implicit assumption, that's true. Wish you good luck. -- Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z) >> -- >> Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z) >> >>>> A real world example of where this would beneficial would be the >>>> workaround we had for buggy ssh[1]. This patch was merged 6 months ago >>>> to work around an issue in ssh that was recently fixed. However we >>>> would most likely never have remembered to revert this. It was only >>>> because someone[2] spotted it and mentioned it that it is being >>>> reverted now. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Alex >>>> >>>> [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494044/ >>>> [1] >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/6e8e27488da31b3b282fe1ce5e07939b3fa11b2f,n,z >>>> [2] Thanks pabelanger >>>> __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
