On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:14:52PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On 06/12/2015 11:41 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote: > > IMO, it's a communication issue and related more to Puppet OpenStack > > community that to Fuel Library folks. In Fuel Library when patch from > > external contributor has some problems we cherry-pick it, update a > > patchset to succeed our expectations. Meanwhile we contact the > > contributor over IRC or email and explain why we did that. That's very > > important as contributor may not know all architectural details. He may > > not know the details of CI tests or details how we test. That's the good > > attitude to help newcomers. So they will be naturally involved to > > community. Yes, it takes time for Fuel Library folks, but we continue > > doing that way as we think that communication with contributor is a key > > of success. > > Adding someone by using Gerrit is not enough. Communication on IRC with > Puppet OpenStack group would be good on the right channel, like it's > done in other OpenStack projects quite often.
+1 > > I have looked over patches in progress. I may be wrong but I didn't find > > that Puppet OpenStack community updated patch to pass CI. It's not > > complex to cherry-pick and fix failed tests. It's also not complex to > > contact person over IRC or in email to explain what needs to be done. > > Trust me, usually it takes once. Smart creatives are clever enough not > > to make same mistakes twice. +1, and I also agree with Emilien that Fuel developers should join #puppet-openstack for such discussions, instead of waiting for Puppet OpenStack developers to find them on #fuel-dev. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/puppet-openstack/+bugs is for > puppet-openstack, which is deprecated in Juno. > > You should look https://launchpad.net/openstack-puppet-modules which > contains mostly triaged bugs. Looks like you need to update the links here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Puppet It still sends bug reporters to https://launchpad.net/puppet-openstack/ > Honestly, if you submit a good patch now, it will land in maximum one > week or so. Yes, one week is a timeframe we can work with. > If Fuel team could also participate in upstream reviews that would be > awesome: > * they would be involved in the community > * they would get experience from other patches and provide better > patches in the future, and get reviews merged faster. Agreed. Even something as small as one review per week would be a good start. Do you have a gerrit review dashboard like the one we use in Fuel: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel#Development_related_links or something else to track reviews backlog? > > From Fuel side I see that some engineers will be involved to review > > process. They will participate in weekly meetings. They also be active > > in communication asking people for help in review or asking why CI failed. > > Good. I'm wondering if we could set up something like an "upstream liaison duty roster", so that there's always a couple of engineers in the Fuel team who make sure that communication with upstream is not falling through the cracks. -- Dmitry Borodaenko __________________________________________________________________________ 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