On 10/10/18 1:35 PM, Greg Hill wrote:
I'm not sure how using pull requests instead of Gerrit changesets would
help "core reviewers being pulled on to other projects"?
The 2 +2 requirement works for larger projects with a lot of
contributors. When you have only 3 regular contributors and 1 of them
gets pulled on to a project and can no longer actively contribute, you
have 2 developers who can +2 each other but nothing can get merged
without that 3rd dev finding time to add another +2. This is what
happened with Taskflow a few years back. Eventually the other 2 gave up
and moved on also.
As the others have mentioned, this doesn't need to continue to be a
blocker. If the alternative is nobody working on the project at all, a
single approver policy is far better. In practice it's probably not much
different from having a general oslo core rubber stamp +2 a patch that
was already reviewed by a taskflow expert.
Is this just about preferring not having a non-human gatekeeper like
Gerrit+Zuul and being able to just have a couple people merge whatever
they want to the master HEAD without needing to talk about +2/+W rights?
We plan to still have a CI gatekeeper, probably Travis CI, to make sure
PRs past muster before being merged, so it's not like we're wanting to
circumvent good contribution practices by committing whatever to HEAD.
But the +2/+W rights thing was a huge PITA to deal with with so few
contributors, for sure.
I guess this would be the one concern I'd have about moving it out. We
still have a fair number of OpenStack projects depending on taskflow[1]
to one degree or another, and having taskflow fully integrated into the
OpenStack CI system is nice for catching problems with proposed changes
early. I think there was some work recently to get OpenStack CI voting
on Github, but it seems inefficient to do work to move it out of
OpenStack and then do more work to partially bring it back.
I suppose the other option is to just stop CI'ing on OpenStack and rely
on the upper-constraints gating we do for our other dependencies. That
would be unfortunate, but again if the alternative is no development at
all then it might be a necessary compromise.
1:
http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=taskflow&i=nope&files=requirements.txt&repos=
If it's just about preferring the pull request workflow versus the
Gerrit rebase workflow, just say so. Same for just preferring the
Github
UI versus Gerrit's UI (which I agree is awful).
I mean, yes, I personally prefer the Github UI and workflow, but that
was not a primary consideration. I got used to using gerrit well enough.
It was mostly the There's also a sense that if a project is in the
Openstack umbrella, it's not useful outside Openstack, and Taskflow is
designed to be a general purpose library. The hope is that just making
it a regular open source project might attract more users and
contributors. This may or may not bear out, but as it is, there's no
real benefit to staying an openstack project on this front since nobody
is actively working on it within the community.
Greg
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
