+1 on updating bug descriptions (not comments) about probability of failure, and using paste.openstack.org more often.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko <dborodae...@mirantis.com > wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Mike Scherbakov > <mscherba...@mirantis.com> wrote: > > "confusing versioning in OpenStack patching" - if we didn't change puppet > > manifests and Fuel/OpenStack reference architecture in next Fuel > versions, > > then it would be as simple as patching from 5.0 to 5.1. But it appeared > to > > be more complicated system than you would initially think of, so in > general > > 5.0.2 may not be equal to 5.1, that's where all things come up. If we had > > OpenStack upgrades, then we could just say 5.0 -> 6.0 - easy. > > We may have had technical reasons to make this decision, but it still > is confusing and negatively impacts UX. I agree that having an > incomplete feature early is better than not having it at all until > much later, as long as we don't stop working on it until it's complete > and these small but annoying deficiencies are addressed. Our > experience with technical debt so far is not very reassuring. > > > "issues with containers" - we have same issues with everything. Let's > take > > Galera, for example. It's just issues. We can question maturity of tools > we > > use, and here I'd agree - we spent too much fixing issues around Docker. > At > > the same time, if we were about taking our own journey with LXC, we would > > likely spend even more time inventing our own bicycle. > > You're assuming that it was just Docker as a piece of software that is > the primary cause of all our troubles with Fuel upgrades. Docker is > only a small part of the a much large and much more intrusive design > decision to use containers for upgrading Fuel (and also the design > decision to use a different mechanism based on Puppet for patching > OpenStack). I think we should question high-level design decisions > like these more often, even after they are implemented. > > > Also, I'd like to ask everyone to provide > > such information in every bug you report if possible (or if get this info > > later, put comments): in many bug reports it is unclear to understand how > > severe issue is. > > I think we should start updating bug description more often, so that > you can find a summary of current state of the bug and of all relevant > information from the description, without having to scroll through > dozens of comments. We should also use paste.openstack.org more > heavily and avoid pasting more than 1-2 lines of logs into bug > description and comments, also to make it easier to find important > bits in bugs history. > -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : fuel-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp