There is a proposal from Armando to clear this up:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/148745/
On 01/22/2015 03:53 PM, Sukhdev Kapur wrote:
Hi Ihar,
I have added this on the agenda for next neutron core meeting to discuss.
This email gives an excellent context to the issue at hand. Only one
thing I would like to add is that the deadline for stable/juno is only
one week away - hence, it raises the urgency to call for action.
Thanks
-Sukhdev
On Jan 21, 2015 1:43 PM, "Ihar Hrachyshka" <ihrac...@redhat.com
<mailto:ihrac...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> as per:
https://github.com/openstack/neutron-specs/blob/master/specs/kilo/core-vendor-decomposition.rst,
neutron is going to spin off vendor plugins into separate trees
outside of neutron core team control. This raises several questions on
how we are going to handle stable branches that will still include
plugin code for several cycles.
>
> 1) If a plugin is already spinned off and a patch is applicable for
stable branches, there are two cases:
> - patch is not merged into vendor repo;
> - patch is merged into the vendor repo.
>
> My take is:
> - if it's merged in the vendor repo, then we just cherry-pick from
there (it should just work if vendor repo was created with the whole
master history saved).
> - if it's not merged into the repo, I would recommend the author to
propose and merge it there first. If there are any justifiable issues
with proposing it for vendor repo inclusion, then we can consider
stable-only merge.
>
> 2) If a plugin is in the middle of spinning off and a patch is
applicable for stable branch, then there are two options:
> - require plugin to spin off first and then apply the patch to
vendor repo, or
> - allow some types of patches to be merged into master while vendors
are working on spinning off the code.
>
> Examples of those patches are:
> - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147976/
> - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/148369/
>
> Currently the patches above are blocked for master inclusion
assuming the spin off must take place first, and then bugs should be
fixed in vendor repo. At the same time, we usually avoid backports
unless the code is not in master anymore, but that's not the case
here. So the current approach effectively blocks any bug fixes for
plugins in stable branches.
>
> If we would be sure that a plugin is out of the tree till Kilo, then
it would indeed be a waste of time to review the code for
neutron/master since it would be guaranteed to be released as a
separate packagr e anyway. In that case, it would be ok to forbid any
patches for the plugin code till its spin off from master, and the
patch would go directly to stable branches.
>
> That said, it would potentially introduce regressions if we consider
upgrades from Juno to Kilo + vendor repo. We may say that since the
regression would be on vendor plugin side, and neutron team does not
have anything to do with spinned off plugins, that would be fine for us.
>
> But: we cannot guarantee that a plugin wil leave the neutron tree
this cycle. The spec explicitly gives permission to stay in the tree
till L-cycle, and in that case it will be our responsibility to handle
regressions in Kilo that we may introduce by blocking master fixes.
>
> I think we should try to set procedure that would avoid potential
regressions even if they will come from vendor repos.
>
> We allow fixes that are not applicable for final releases for master
if it's to be backported in stable branches. F.e. see
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127633/ that was merged into master
while pecan migration should make it useless for Kilo.
>
> It's my belief plugin code bug fixes in stable branches should be
treated the same way.
>
> That said, we should expect vendors to run third party CI for stable
branches if they want to see backports merged in.
>
> ***
> I think the correct approach here is:
> - once a plugin is spinned off, consider it is a 'master' for the
code, and backport to stable branches directly from there;
> - before a plugin is spinned off, assume that it's not going to be
spinned off in Kilo, and hence allow bug fixes in neutron/master (but
not new features);
> - once we get to L release that requires all vendor plugin to go
out, forbid any fixes for the code, assuming they will either spin off
or will be dropped anyway.
> ***
>
> The approach is pretty similar to how oslo project handles new
library spin-offs from oslo-incubator. Yes, there is a difference
here: in neutron, we loose any control on spinned off repos. Though I
don't feel it justifies stable-only fixes while we can easily add
value to vendor code by asking people to consider fixing the bug there
first. More importantly, nothing should justify blocking bug fixing
for stable branches.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> /Ihar
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
<http://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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
