On 08/13/2014 08:07 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:55:48PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:04AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote:
That said, I entirely agree with you and wish efforts to stabilize would
take precedence over feature work.
I find it really contradictory that we have such a strong desire for
stabilization and testing of our code, but at the same time so many
people argue that the core teams should have nothing at all todo with
the stable release branches which a good portion of our users will
actually be running.
Does such an argument actually exist? My experience has been that
stable-maint folks are very accepting of help, and that it's relatively
easy for core reviewers with an interest in stable branch maintenance to
offer their services and become stable-maint core:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Joining_the_Team
There are multiple responses to my mail here to the effect that core
teams should not be involved in stable branch work and leave it upto
the distro maintainers unless individuals wish to volunteer
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/041409.html
By ignoring stable branches, leaving it upto a
small team to handle, I think we giving the wrong message about what
our priorities as a team team are. I can't help thinking this filters
through to impact the way people think about their work on master.
Who is ignoring stable branches? This sounds like a project specific
failing to me, as all experienced core reviewers should consider offering
their services to help with stable-maint activity.
I don't personally see any reason why the *entire* project core team has to
do this, but a subset of them should feel compelled to participate in the
stable-maint process, if they have sufficient time, interest and historical
context, it's not "some other team" IMO.
I think that stable branch review should be a key responsibility for anyone
on the core team, not solely those few who volunteer for stable team. As
the number of projects in openstack grows I think the idea of having a
single stable team with rights to approve across any project is ultimately
flawed because it doesn't scale efficiently and they don't have the same
level of domain knowledge as the respective project teams.
+1
This is exactly the same problem the QA team has. "In the beginning"
there was nova/glance/swift/(cinder) and most of us knew it pretty well.
OpenStack has grown so fast that horizontal work like this becomes
extremely difficult. What Daniel said is one important part of the
motivation for moving functional/api tests to projects.
-David
Regards,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
