Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/10/14 22:25, Dirk Müller wrote: > 2014-10-02 14:19 GMT+02:00 Duncan Thomas > : > > Hi, > >> What is actually needed is those who rely on the stable >> branch(es) existence need to step forward and dedicate resources >> to it. Putting the work on people not interested is just the same >> as killing them off, except slower, messier and creating more >> anger and otehr community fallout along the way. > > I'm paid by one of those distros that are interested in stable > branch maintenance but have no idea what needs to be done other > than saying "I'm interested in helping out". I've been proposing > patches to backport every once in a while already and being > frustrated that it takes weeks if not months for someone to review > them and potentially merge. What are the queries that people are > supposed to look at ? How can I help in pushing patches or look for > gating failures *specific* to stable/ branches? First, check out [1]. Also please subscribe to openstack-stable-maint@ mailing list [2]. You can start helping the team by applying the rules from [1] to existing backport reviews. Once team members see your work for a while, you will be able to join the team and get +2 vote for stable branches. Welcome! [1]: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch [2]: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-stable-maint /Ihar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUNE5dAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57cpoH/2Y8qTTRg1IBWBB7O+VnezWc LEHEi1ydXwpu75kPMI5YWlPx4YWSFKRD6DOd30bUgSsoW7rI/d1LtelfvE3ubdS3 8D6qt1Rvlw15xpX8GbVaABlezxeQufufCMp0wioV0OkrlryyF0dvE1iopwnIjnAi hD8rfbAO8LUW8ra0hkteRFac3oPVzGBGhWu67ijxvec3Oh7p7gV4AlMj2tm2n5JE fhzxPLnPTqVa8zqJYdZBIr7nHfZtvx9bxGMPAqJP40e15x/toaVJquBEM43HaVs+ 2YX5sGWrxmZaP6w8TJRcbBqny0hfK8n3IWgY6d8NVa4FqgwibdHY22hi7jnMuoU= =hLF9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
2014-10-02 14:19 GMT+02:00 Duncan Thomas : Hi, > What is actually needed is those who rely on the stable branch(es) > existence need to step forward and dedicate resources to it. Putting > the work on people not interested is just the same as killing them > off, except slower, messier and creating more anger and otehr > community fallout along the way. I'm paid by one of those distros that are interested in stable branch maintenance but have no idea what needs to be done other than saying "I'm interested in helping out". I've been proposing patches to backport every once in a while already and being frustrated that it takes weeks if not months for someone to review them and potentially merge. What are the queries that people are supposed to look at ? How can I help in pushing patches or look for gating failures *specific* to stable/ branches? Thanks, Dirk ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
On 2 October 2014 12:57, Thierry Carrez wrote: > As far as stable is concerned, the fix is relatively simple and has been > proposed a while back: push responsibility of stable branch maintenance > down at project-level. The current stable-maint team would become > "stable branch release managers" and it would be the responsibility of > each project to maintain their stable branch, backport fixes and making > sure things can get merged to it. > > Those projects may or may not be willing to commit to 15 months > maintenance (which means maintaining 2-3 stable branches in addition to > master). But I think what they can commit to is a better reflection of > what we can achieve -- since without upstream support it's difficult to > keep all stable branches for all integrated projects alive. I don't see that much interest for doing this from many of the core teams, so I think a likely result of this would be to make things worse, not better. It's fine to say something is now their responsibility, but that does little to nothing to influence where they actually choose to work. What is actually needed is those who rely on the stable branch(es) existence need to step forward and dedicate resources to it. Putting the work on people not interested is just the same as killing them off, except slower, messier and creating more anger and otehr community fallout along the way. -- Duncan Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
Sean Dague wrote: > If stable branches are important to the project, then stable branches > need to be front and center in the weekly project meeting. Maintaining a > thing is actually knowing the current status and working to make it better. FWIW, the current "weekly meeting" is no longer a general catch-all project status meeting -- it is now specifically about the release under development, not about stable branches. It is why we don't talk about stable branches there. We could change (again) the scope of that meeting, or have a specific meeting about stable status. For example, if we require "stable liaisons" in every project, those could meet with the stable maint release managers every week to discuss the state of the branches. > Removing tests is a totally fine thing to propose, for instance. > > But the point is, raised well by Alan, the stable branches are basically > only being worked on by one distro, and no other vendors. So honestly, > if that doesn't change, I'd suggest dropping all but the most recent one > (so we can test upgrade testing for current master). I think another issue is that the stable maint team is traditionally staffed with distro packagers, which are less involved upstream (and have less time to dedicate upstream) than your average OpenStack contributor. That doesn't make them the best candidates to know the gate inside out, or to have connections in each and every project to get issues solved. Which is why it tends to fall back on "the usual suspects" :) So I'm not sure getting more distro packagers involved would make that much difference. We need everyone upstream to care more about stable/*. And we need to align our support period with what we can collectively achieve. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
On 10/02/2014 07:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Michael Still wrote: >> I agree with Sean here. >> >> The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by >> the distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code >> review latency there. We need to sort that out before we even consider >> supporting a release for more than the one year we currently do. > > Well, it's just another area where the current model fails to scale. > It's easy to only talk about gating and release management and overlook > vulnerability management, stable maintenance and other horizontal tasks > where the resources also don't grow nearly as fast as new integrated > projects and complexity. > > As far as stable is concerned, the fix is relatively simple and has been > proposed a while back: push responsibility of stable branch maintenance > down at project-level. The current stable-maint team would become > "stable branch release managers" and it would be the responsibility of > each project to maintain their stable branch, backport fixes and making > sure things can get merged to it. I disagree that's the simple fix. Because the net effect is that it's pushed back to the only people that seem to be working on OpenStack as a whole see ranty rant in other part of this thread. Decentralizing this responsibility if we're talking about any more than 5 or 6 integrated projects, makes it unsolvable IMHO. I just kicks the can down the road with a "we solved it" stamp... when we did no such thing. If I can't merge the nova fixes because heat is killing the stable tree (which it currently is), then clearly I can't as a nova dev be responsible for that. People have already given up on that in master, there is no way they are going to care on stable. > Those projects may or may not be willing to commit to 15 months > maintenance (which means maintaining 2-3 stable branches in addition to > master). But I think what they can commit to is a better reflection of > what we can achieve -- since without upstream support it's difficult to > keep all stable branches for all integrated projects alive. > > I already planned to dedicate a cross-project workshop (or a release > management scheduled slot) to that specific topic, so that we can have a > clear way forward in Kilo. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
Michael Still wrote: > I agree with Sean here. > > The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by > the distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code > review latency there. We need to sort that out before we even consider > supporting a release for more than the one year we currently do. Well, it's just another area where the current model fails to scale. It's easy to only talk about gating and release management and overlook vulnerability management, stable maintenance and other horizontal tasks where the resources also don't grow nearly as fast as new integrated projects and complexity. As far as stable is concerned, the fix is relatively simple and has been proposed a while back: push responsibility of stable branch maintenance down at project-level. The current stable-maint team would become "stable branch release managers" and it would be the responsibility of each project to maintain their stable branch, backport fixes and making sure things can get merged to it. Those projects may or may not be willing to commit to 15 months maintenance (which means maintaining 2-3 stable branches in addition to master). But I think what they can commit to is a better reflection of what we can achieve -- since without upstream support it's difficult to keep all stable branches for all integrated projects alive. I already planned to dedicate a cross-project workshop (or a release management scheduled slot) to that specific topic, so that we can have a clear way forward in Kilo. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
On 10/02/2014 04:47 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Hi, > > I guess the following review is meant: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125075/ > > I went thru each of the failure for the patch (no dependency failures > checked), and here are some damned lies (c) about those failures: > > - bug 1323658: 2 failures (ssh connection timeout issue, shows up in > Neutron jobs) > - bug 1331274: 2 failures (Grenade not starting services) > - bug 1375108: 4 failures (bug in Nova EC2 reboot code?) > - bug 1348204: 1 failure (Cinder volume detach failing) > - bug 1374175: 1 failure (Heat bug) > > Neither of those bugs are solved in master. Some of those bugs are > staying opened for months. The first bug was raised as Neutron bug and > marked for RC-1, but then was untargeted due to believe among Neutron > developers that it's a bug in Tempest. > > Nevertheless, with all the hopeless state of the gate, in the Icehouse > release scheduled for today stable maint team was able to merge fixes > for more than 120 bugs. > > So, all that said, does anyone believe that it's fair to bitch about > stable maintainers not doing their job? Wouldn't it be more fair to > bitch about the overall hopeless state of the gate and projects > feeling ok releasing Juno with major failures in gate (like in case of > the very first bug in the list)? > > /Ihar Fwiw, this whole patch stream is part of the fix for #1331274 in Juno / Master (we need to get off of screen in grenade to have been process control) - https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-dev/devstack+branch:stable/icehouse+topic:no_screen,n,z and in order to merge any devstack icehouse changes we needed to fix the tox bashate targets (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125075/ is actually a trivial additional add, so it made a really good indication that this was latent state). After those fails on this patch - we correctly disabled grenade on icehouse (it should have been turned off when havana eoled, there was a delay) - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125371/ I made a bunch of noise about #1323658 in the project meeting, spent a bunch of time on chasing that after, I agree that punting on it for the release was a very questionable call. I proposed the skip - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125150/ which was merged. I marked #1374175 as critical for the heat team - https://bugs.launchpad.net/heat/+bug/1374175 - also skipping it is working it's way through the gate now - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125545/. Joe, Matt Treinish, and I looked at #1375108 last night, and found that the test author had recheck grinded their test in ... even when it failed in related areas. So that was straight reverted - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125543/ I have not looked into 1348204 at all - I just bumped it up to critical. Looks like Matt Riedeman has a debug patch out there. ... But that seems to answer the question I was asking. Who's maintaining this seems to be me (or more specifically the same people that are always working these bugs, me, joe, matt, and matt). I don't want it to be me. Because as soon as I manage to get the infrastructure for fixing #1331274 I want nothing more to do with icehouse stable. What I'm complaining about is that until I spent time on #1331274 no one seemed to understand that devstack patches aren't mergable (and hadn't been for weeks). If stable was maintained I'd expect that someone would actually know the current state, or be helping with it. Also icehouse is about to no longer be installable with pip because of pip changes. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/124648/ has to land to fix that, other devstack patches have to land to get us there. If stable branches are important to the project, then stable branches need to be front and center in the weekly project meeting. Maintaining a thing is actually knowing the current status and working to make it better. Removing tests is a totally fine thing to propose, for instance. But the point is, raised well by Alan, the stable branches are basically only being worked on by one distro, and no other vendors. So honestly, if that doesn't change, I'd suggest dropping all but the most recent one (so we can test upgrade testing for current master). -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, I guess the following review is meant: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125075/ I went thru each of the failure for the patch (no dependency failures checked), and here are some damned lies (c) about those failures: - - bug 1323658: 2 failures (ssh connection timeout issue, shows up in Neutron jobs) - - bug 1331274: 2 failures (Grenade not starting services) - - bug 1375108: 4 failures (bug in Nova EC2 reboot code?) - - bug 1348204: 1 failure (Cinder volume detach failing) - - bug 1374175: 1 failure (Heat bug) Neither of those bugs are solved in master. Some of those bugs are staying opened for months. The first bug was raised as Neutron bug and marked for RC-1, but then was untargeted due to believe among Neutron developers that it's a bug in Tempest. Nevertheless, with all the hopeless state of the gate, in the Icehouse release scheduled for today stable maint team was able to merge fixes for more than 120 bugs. So, all that said, does anyone believe that it's fair to bitch about stable maintainers not doing their job? Wouldn't it be more fair to bitch about the overall hopeless state of the gate and projects feeling ok releasing Juno with major failures in gate (like in case of the very first bug in the list)? /Ihar On 02/10/14 09:21, Alan Pevec wrote: >> I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack. > > Which review# is that so I can have a look? > > Cheers, Alan > > ___ OpenStack-dev > mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJULRESAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57xa0IAJQyvTM7ibfImE0TzXT3AuYE WWy8YmYEbXyH+dEuo6JmaLyKcPAnnlS14Rw+rU2MPtgQWIH1ePkrsrv2PELlF/QI beoVXgUdXemq5AUl3I79H/de7wOAsNhlfrfUdY1GqonVoDkyD5zjQAy4pOUP475G r2kAhIR6EBfS68MWNAJhhjUiP+m+l8kcb0ylenk1AC/JqKtHlSs8DVx25e/FaZtl 46aGKPcbRC2PvHJZ1CmeXDaKasiY3M9lFZvJDmPpNF7qGqlw3WChSRw3yMX/qvNe owLDhP6GGSI6wVQvNo2LVESZK5Fs3n2L2WhHXsjiFYEoYZ57Worm4n5mQogw6uc= =Q55h -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
On 2 Oct 2014 08:19, "Alan Pevec" wrote: > > > The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by the > > distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code review > > Stable branches are maintained by the _upstream_ stable-maint team[1] > where most members might be from (two) distros but please note that > all PTLs are also included and there are members who are not from a > distro. > But you're right, if this stays mostly one distro effort, we'll pull > out and do it on our own. > /me looks at other non-named distros > > > latency there. We need to sort that out before we even consider supporting a > > release for more than the one year we currently do. > > Please consider that stable branches are also needed for the security > fixes and we, as a responsible upstream project, need to provide that > with or without distros. Stable branch was a master branch just few > months ago and it inherited all the bugs present there, so everybody > fixing a gate bug on master should consider backporting to stable at > the same time. It can't be stable-maint-only responsiblity e.g. > stable-maint doesn't have +2 in devstack stable/* or in tempest (now > brancheless, so master) branches. > > Cheers, > Alan > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/120,members > Hey, When I initially proposed the concept of stable branches, it was indeed targeted as a collaborative distro effort. It became clear in the summit session that there was not just shared interest from distros, but vendors and large consumers. It was /not/ something that I envisaged would become a project responsibility, just an area for the various types of consumer to collaborate, rather than duplicating effort in downstreams.. Most likely missing pretty important stability patches. I didn't want dedicated point releases, just an always stable area where consumers could pull/rebase from. This idea pretty much changed, and vendors wanted a stamped-point release to make the situation clearer to their users. I think everyone would agree that the project and scope has grown pretty significantly since the early days, and I agree that there does need to be project-wide share of the burden of keeping the stable branches maintained, with stable-maint becoming the driver. It can only scale if there is sustained interest from each project. I do not think it *can* now work with a small team of generalists, without support from SME of projects. I am pretty nervous of the point you make about Red Hat taking their ball and going home if more distros don't commit to more effort. This is pretty simply not the way to encourage more participation. Sadly, the git pull stats cannot be public.. But I am pretty sure that a reasonably large consumer-base slurp up the branches directly. If this is true, then it is clear that the project has a responsibility to users.. Therefore, the quick fire point of talking about stable branch ongoing feasibility is a bit rash. The general project clearly isn't ready for rolling release, so we need to talk about how we can make this work. I have been absent from the stable-maint effort for the last year, but have been tracking the stable mailing list. This feels like the first credible 'we are struggling' that has been raised - I actually believed it was reasonably healthy. It does seem that this issue has been brewing for a while. Therefore, I think we need to do a better effort of tracking weak areas in the process. We do not have a decent TODO list. Tracking what needs to be done, allows better granular sharing of the burden. This is not a problem of looking at gerrit stable/* open reviews but bugs in the process. Is the issue mostly about changing dependencies upper versions? Should we consider whitelisting updated dependencies in requirements.txt, rather than blacklisting/racing to backport a fix? Are enough patchsets proposed from current Master? Are project core's routinely asking themselves if a patchset should be backported? Are we tracking open-bugs on Master well enough as also affecting stable releases? I do not think we are struggling primarily with technical issues, but procedural issues. I hope we are all agreed we /need/ something. Let's talk about 'what' and 'how', rather than 'if'. [I will look to be more involved with stable this cycle.] -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
> I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack. Which review# is that so I can have a look? Cheers, Alan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
> The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by the > distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code review Stable branches are maintained by the _upstream_ stable-maint team[1] where most members might be from (two) distros but please note that all PTLs are also included and there are members who are not from a distro. But you're right, if this stays mostly one distro effort, we'll pull out and do it on our own. /me looks at other non-named distros > latency there. We need to sort that out before we even consider supporting a > release for more than the one year we currently do. Please consider that stable branches are also needed for the security fixes and we, as a responsible upstream project, need to provide that with or without distros. Stable branch was a master branch just few months ago and it inherited all the bugs present there, so everybody fixing a gate bug on master should consider backporting to stable at the same time. It can't be stable-maint-only responsiblity e.g. stable-maint doesn't have +2 in devstack stable/* or in tempest (now brancheless, so master) branches. Cheers, Alan [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/120,members ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
The stable-maint team has been more active in the last couple months of keeping on top of stable branch specific gate breakage (usually identified by periodic job failures). We managed to flush a bunch of reviews through the gate over the last couple weeks [1] Yea, many required rechecks, but the biggest bugs I hit werehttp://pad.lv/1323658 and http://pad.lv/1374175 which, according to elastic-recheck, are project-wide, affecting master and not specific to the stable branches. mikal's right, code review has indeed been lagging over the last cycle.. Tho the last month or two a number of new faces have showed and are actively helping get things reviewed in a timely manner. I'm curious what else is failing that is specific to the stable trees? I spent time over the weekend babysitting many stable merges and found it to be no more / no less painful than trying to get a Tempest patch merged. Cheers, -Adam [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+branch:stable/icehouse,n,z On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is > actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real > way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that > icehouse requirements can be unblocked (and to land code that will > reduce grenade failures) > > I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack. > > During the last summit people said they wanted to support icehouse for > 15 months. Right now we're at 6 months and the tree is basically unable > to merge code. > > So who is actually standing up to fix these things, or are we going to > just leave it broken and shoot icehouse in the head early? > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
I agree with Sean here. The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by the distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code review latency there. We need to sort that out before we even consider supporting a release for more than the one year we currently do. Michael On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 10/01/2014 04:46 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > > On 10/1/14, 11:53 AM, "Morgan Fainberg" > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > >> > >> As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is > >> actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real > >> way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that > >> icehouse requirements can be unblocked (and to land code that will > >> reduce grenade failures) > >> > >> I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack. > >> > >> During the last summit people said they wanted to support icehouse for > >> 15 months. Right now we're at 6 months and the tree is basically unable > >> to merge code. > >> > >> So who is actually standing up to fix these things, or are we going to > >> just leave it broken and shoot icehouse in the head early? > >> > >>-Sean > >> > >> -- > >> Sean Dague > >> http://dague.net > >> > >> > >> > >> We should stick with the longer support for Icehouse in my opinion. I'll > >> happily volunteer time to help get it back into shape. > >> > >> > >> The other question is will Juno *also* have extended stable support? Or > >> is it more of an LTS style thing (I'm not a huge fan of the LTS model, > >> but it is easier in some regards). If every release is getting extended > >> support, we may need to look at our tool > >> chains so we can better support the releases. > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Morgan > >> > >> > >> Sent via mobile > > > > Would ever release need to be LTS or would every other release (or every > > 4th) release be LTS? We could consider a policy like Ubuntu’s (e.g., > 10.04 > > 12.04, 14.04 are all LTS and the next will be 16.04). > > Before thinking about LTS policy we should actually think about having a > tree that you can land code in... because today, you can't with icehouse. > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125075/ is on recheck #7 - still failing. > > Note, this is *after* we turned off the 2 highest failing tests on > icehouse as well to alleviate the issue. > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Rackspace Australia ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
On 10/01/2014 04:46 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On 10/1/14, 11:53 AM, "Morgan Fainberg" wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague wrote: >> >> As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is >> actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real >> way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that >> icehouse requirements can be unblocked (and to land code that will >> reduce grenade failures) >> >> I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack. >> >> During the last summit people said they wanted to support icehouse for >> 15 months. Right now we're at 6 months and the tree is basically unable >> to merge code. >> >> So who is actually standing up to fix these things, or are we going to >> just leave it broken and shoot icehouse in the head early? >> >>-Sean >> >> -- >> Sean Dague >> http://dague.net >> >> >> >> We should stick with the longer support for Icehouse in my opinion. I'll >> happily volunteer time to help get it back into shape. >> >> >> The other question is will Juno *also* have extended stable support? Or >> is it more of an LTS style thing (I'm not a huge fan of the LTS model, >> but it is easier in some regards). If every release is getting extended >> support, we may need to look at our tool >> chains so we can better support the releases. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Morgan >> >> >> Sent via mobile > > Would ever release need to be LTS or would every other release (or every > 4th) release be LTS? We could consider a policy like Ubuntu’s (e.g., 10.04 > 12.04, 14.04 are all LTS and the next will be 16.04). Before thinking about LTS policy we should actually think about having a tree that you can land code in... because today, you can't with icehouse. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125075/ is on recheck #7 - still failing. Note, this is *after* we turned off the 2 highest failing tests on icehouse as well to alleviate the issue. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
On 10/1/14, 11:53 AM, "Morgan Fainberg" wrote: > > >On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > >As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is >actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real >way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that >icehouse requirements can be unblocked (and to land code that will >reduce grenade failures) > >I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack. > >During the last summit people said they wanted to support icehouse for >15 months. Right now we're at 6 months and the tree is basically unable >to merge code. > >So who is actually standing up to fix these things, or are we going to >just leave it broken and shoot icehouse in the head early? > >-Sean > >-- >Sean Dague >http://dague.net > > > >We should stick with the longer support for Icehouse in my opinion. I'll >happily volunteer time to help get it back into shape. > > >The other question is will Juno *also* have extended stable support? Or >is it more of an LTS style thing (I'm not a huge fan of the LTS model, >but it is easier in some regards). If every release is getting extended >support, we may need to look at our tool > chains so we can better support the releases. > > >Cheers, >Morgan > > >Sent via mobile Would ever release need to be LTS or would every other release (or every 4th) release be LTS? We could consider a policy like Ubuntu’s (e.g., 10.04 12.04, 14.04 are all LTS and the next will be 16.04). — Ian ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is > actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real > way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that > icehouse requirements can be unblocked (and to land code that will > reduce grenade failures) > > I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack. > > During the last summit people said they wanted to support icehouse for > 15 months. Right now we're at 6 months and the tree is basically unable > to merge code. > > So who is actually standing up to fix these things, or are we going to > just leave it broken and shoot icehouse in the head early? > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net We should stick with the longer support for Icehouse in my opinion. I'll happily volunteer time to help get it back into shape. The other question is will Juno *also* have extended stable support? Or is it more of an LTS style thing (I'm not a huge fan of the LTS model, but it is easier in some regards). If every release is getting extended support, we may need to look at our tool chains so we can better support the releases. Cheers, Morgan Sent via mobile ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
