Emilien, Agree on the rant. But not clear on concrete proposal to fix it. Spend more time "fixing" CI and use Tempest as a gate is a bit wage. Unless we test known working version of each project in TripleO CI you are dependent on health of other components. Thanks, Arkady
-----Original Message----- From: Emilien Macchi [mailto:emil...@redhat.com] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 8:23 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Contributing to TripleO is challenging That's not the name of any Summit's talk, it's just an e-mail I wanted to write for a long time. It is an attempt to expose facts or things I've heard a lot; and bring constructive thoughts about why it's challenging to contribute in TripleO project. 1/ "I don't review this patch, we don't have CI coverage." One thing I've noticed in TripleO is that a very few people are involved in CI work. In my opinion, CI system is more critical than any feature in a product. Developing Software without tests is a bit like http://goo.gl/OlgFRc All people - specially core - in the project should be involved in CI work. If you are TripleO core and you don't contribute on CI, you might ask yourself why. 2/ "I don't review this patch, CI is broken." Another thing I've noticed in TripleO is that when CI is broken, again, a very few people are actually working on fixing failures. My experience over the last years taught me to stop my daily work when CI is broken and fix it asap. 3/ "I don't review it, because this feature / code is not my area". My first though is "Aren't we supposed to be engineers and learn new areas?" My second though is that I think we have a problem with TripleO Heat Templates. THT or TripleO Heat Templates's code is 80% of Puppet / Hiera. If TripleO core say "I'm not familiar with Puppet", we have a problem here, isn't? Maybe should we split this repository? Or revisit the list of people who can +2 patches on THT. 4/ Patches are stalled. Most of the time. Over the last 12 months, I've pushed a lot of patches in TripleO and one thing I've noticed is that if I don't ping people, my patch got no review. And I have to rebase it, every week, because the interface changed. I got +2, cool ! Oh, merge conflict. Rebasing. Waiting for +2 again... and so on.. I personally spent 20% of my time to review code, every day. I wrote a blog post about how I'm doing review, with Gertty: http://my1.fr/blog/reviewing-puppet-openstack-patches/ I suggest TripleO folks to spend more time on reviews, for some reasons: * decreasing frustration from contributors * accelerate development process * teach new contributors to work on TripleO, and eventually scale-up the core team. It's a time investment, but worth it. In Puppet team, we have weekly triage sessions and it's pretty helpful. 5/ Most of the tests are run... manually. How many times I've heard "I've tested this patch locally, and it does not work so -1". The only test we do in current CI is a ping to an instance. Seriously? Most of OpenStack CIs (Fuel included), run Tempest, for testing APIs and real scenarios. And we run a ping. That's similar to 1/ but I wanted to raise it too. If we don't change our way to work on TripleO, people will be more frustrated and reduce contributions at some point. I hope from here we can have a open and constructive discussion to try to improve the TripleO project. Thank you for reading so far. -- Emilien Macchi
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
