I can not find the policy about how long data is stored there, but I doubt that pastebin service can be used as a longterm storage. If we don't want to lose logs and scripts data, the use of paste.o.o links for bug reports should be forbidden.
Launchpad attachments are much more reliable even though less comfortable to use. On Aug 27, 2014 8:49 AM, "Mike Scherbakov" <mscherba...@mirantis.com> wrote: > +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 > >
-- 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