On 09/08/2011 02:27 AM, Chris Behrens wrote:
> Sure, I agree with the below. I tend to think the PPB is the place
> for the decision for the reasons you state below (though that's more
> than 3-4 people tops). But whether it's the PPB or some other small
> group of people, I'd want to see every
On 09/08/2011 05:18 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Chris Behrens wrote:
>>
>> I say this for future decisions. At the moment, Gerrit is what was
>> chosen and I'm just interested in seeing if we can alleviate some
>> of the pain my team is having working with it.
Sandy,
I'm sorry that your suggestion unfortunately got caught up in the
general frustration about how the git/gerrit decision came about.
Hopefully future decisions can be debated/discussed more before they
are made rather than after they are implemented. This should be a
lesson learned by both
space@lists.launchpad.net
[openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace@lists.launchpad.net] on behalf of
Vishvananda Ishaya [vishvana...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:18 AM
To: Chris Behrens
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to G
On Sep 8, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Chris Behrens wrote:
>
> I say this for future decisions. At the moment, Gerrit is what was chosen
> and I'm just interested in seeing if we can alleviate some of the pain my
> team is having working with it.
>
I still believe that we can get the best of all world
Instead of a mailing list full of political posturing around our
toolset, how about someone post a concrete problem with gerrit, and
we'll pretend to be a bunch of engineers and solve it.
-Dolph
On 09/08/2011 04:27 AM, Chris Behrens wrote:
> Sure, I agree with the below. I tend to think the P
Sure, I agree with the below. I tend to think the PPB is the place for the
decision for the reasons you state below (though that's more than 3-4 people
tops). But whether it's the PPB or some other small group of people, I'd want
to see everybody have a chance to provide enough feedback for th
If this thread has anything clear to me at all, it's that adding
*more* people to this discussion isn't going to bring us any closer to
an agreement.
Here's a thought:
How about we appoint (formally, informally, whatever, it's beside the
point) someone (3-4 people tops) to come up with a set of t
Hi Chris,
2011/9/7 Chris Behrens
> Thanks. I see them. It's not that I didn't think there would be responses.
> I'm just trying to keep us on track to trying to resolve the issues while I
> still complain that *I* feel we should have had some more/earlier/better
> communication on this list
Johannes Erdfelt writes:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>> ... and that's only from my first few days using Gerrit.
>
> I'd also like to add that the when merges fail, it's not easy to figure
> out why.
>
> I had a proposed branch the was approved and then failed to merge. I
> recei
On Sep 7, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Chris Behrens
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>> The problem is that instead of spending time coding on features and
>>> bugs for Nova, Glance, Swift and Keystone, a bunch of devs are in
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Sandy Walsh wrote:
> ... and that's only from my first few days using Gerrit.
I'd also like to add that the when merges fail, it's not easy to figure
out why.
I had a proposed branch the was approved and then failed to merge. I
received a handful of emails (4?) that were m
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Part of this also comes from a semantic difference in how github and
> gerrit view the world. On github, you develop on your personal fork, and
> then you submit one of the branches in your fork to be pulled - so the
> unit of review is the branch- meani
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Chris Behrens
wrote:
>
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> The problem is that instead of spending time coding on features and
>> bugs for Nova, Glance, Swift and Keystone, a bunch of devs are instead
>> spending time working on an alternate solution t
On Sep 7, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> The problem is that instead of spending time coding on features and
> bugs for Nova, Glance, Swift and Keystone, a bunch of devs are instead
> spending time working on an alternate solution to what has already
> been decided by the PPB, discussed publ
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> The problem is that instead of spending time coding on features and
>> bugs for Nova, Glance, Swift and Keystone, a bunch of devs are instead
>> spending time working on an alternate solution to wh
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Erdfelt
>> wrote:
>> > Why do core members have that "merge and close" option? Wouldn't it make
>> > more sense to restrict that to the Jenkins account?
urrent git/gerrit/jenkins setup and we'll be happy to do what
>we can to address them.
>
>Thanks!
>Monty
>
>On 09/05/2011 10:14 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>> Absolutely. It's a holiday here (I'm just checking in periodically).
>>
>> Enjoy your day y
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Jay Pipes wrote:
> The problem is that instead of spending time coding on features and
> bugs for Nova, Glance, Swift and Keystone, a bunch of devs are instead
> spending time working on an alternate solution to what has already
> been decided by the PPB, discussed publicly,
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Erdfelt
> wrote:
> > Why do core members have that "merge and close" option? Wouldn't it make
> > more sense to restrict that to the Jenkins account?
> >
> > I still think you can do a gated trunk, even with githu
will provide joy for some
projects out there just as roundabout has - but please understand that
OpenStack is not considering using it.
We _are_, on the other hand, quite strongly interested in bugs and/or
patches from folks addressing the current system.
Thanks!
Monty
> __
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Sandy Walsh
>> wrote:
>> > But yes, there is a risk that a core member could just hit "merge and
>> > close" and break trunk. That's perhaps the only real "con"
On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
> Heh. Like I mentioned at the top of the thread, it's just a hack. We're
> currently merging with Roundabout to handle the Jenkins integration and make
> roundabout's workflow strategies pluggable.
>
> So, right now only the pull request and cor
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Monsyne Dragon wrote:
> This is basically what gerrit and our current LP setup do. it's just a
> matter of permissions.
Couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks, Monsyne!
-jay
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.ne
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Sandy Walsh
> wrote:
> > But yes, there is a risk that a core member could just hit "merge and
> > close" and break trunk. That's perhaps the only real "con" I can think of.
>
> That's the entire point of gerrit and a ga
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:59 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> > So far as I know, there's no requirement that someone have merge
>> > authority on a project in order to comment on pull requests. Do cores
>> > have direct access to the openstack
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:59 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > So far as I know, there's no requirement that someone have merge
> > authority on a project in order to comment on pull requests. Do cores
> > have direct access to the openstack repos right now, and if they do,
> > what's to stop them from m
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:24 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >> In addition, this doesn't prevent anyone on the core team from doing a
> >> straight close and merge of the pull request in
he only real "con" I can think of.
-S
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Josh Kearney; Soren Hansen; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
> But yes, there is a risk that a core member could just hit "merge and close"
> and break trunk. That's perhaps the only real "con" I can think of.
That's the entire point of gerrit and a gated trunk, Sandy :)
-jay
__
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:24 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> In addition, this doesn't prevent anyone on the core team from doing a
> straight close and merge of the pull request into trunk, potentially
> breaking trunk.
So far as I know, there's no requirement that someone have merge
authority on a proj
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:24 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> In addition, this doesn't prevent anyone on the core team from doing a
>> straight close and merge of the pull request into trunk, potentially
>> breaking trunk.
>
> So far as I know,
stylings thanks to Jake Dahn!
>
> From: Josh Kearney [j...@jk0.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:05 PM
> To: Soren Hansen
> Cc: Sandy Walsh; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
&
s.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Soren Hansen
mailto:so...@linux2go.dk>> wrote:
The critical point has never been whether we could reliably detect
people's votes (even though I really dislike parsing free-form
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
The critical point has never been whether we could reliably detect
> people's votes (even though I really dislike parsing free-form text to
> extract critical information like this). Even though Launchpad offers
> voting information in a structu
enstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
2011/9/7 Sandy Walsh :
> We're talking simple string parsing here. The last keyword from a user is
> that users vote. Multiple pull requests would be equally easy to support with
> a !new_vote command (or some such thing).
The critical poin
2011/9/7 Sandy Walsh :
> We're talking simple string parsing here. The last keyword from a user is
> that users vote. Multiple pull requests would be equally easy to support with
> a !new_vote command (or some such thing).
The critical point has never been whether we could reliably detect
people
nt: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:31 PM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Stefano Maffulli; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
Hi everybody!
I understand some of you are not comfortable with Gerrit and the
workflow I and others are working to implement.
Monty Taylor wrote:
> I understand some of you are not comfortable with Gerrit [...]
Thanks for this explanation.
> With this many devs, there will NEVER (and I cannot stress that word
> never enough is a textual email) be full agreement on developer tooling.
> However, what we can do is take in
Monty,
Is there a published list of work flow requirements for an/the
OpenStack project? Not really based on any specific implementation
or tool.
These is the closest thing I could find.
For bzr there are http://wiki.openstack.org/BzrPerfectWorkflow &
http://wiki.openstack.org/LifeWithBzrAnd
k-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace@lists.launchpad.net] on
> behalf of Stefano Maffulli [smaffu...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2011 12:35 PM
> *To:* openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
>
> 2011/9/5 Sandy Wal
On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Chris Behrens wrote:
>> But leaving aside whether I like it or dislike it, what really bothers me is
>> that there was discussion about moving things to github. And, I was 'ok'
>> with that decision to do so despite preferring bzr and LP. My
tefano Maffulli [smaffu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 12:35 PM
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
2011/9/5 Sandy Walsh
mailto:sandy.wa...@rackspace.com>>
That said, whether we use roundabout or use the code
2011/9/5 Sandy Walsh
> That said, whether we use roundabout or use the code that has already been
> created for the gerrit/jenkins integration is perhaps worthy of a
> discussion?
>
I believe it is worth a discussion. Since today is a holiday in the US and
many developers are offline I propose w
ad.net] on behalf of
Ewan Mellor [ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 6:38 AM
To: Chuck Thier; Josh Kearney
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
I think a gated trunk is very important. We're going to have some pret
c: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
>
> Taking a bit of a step back, it seems to me that the biggest thing
> that prevents us from using a pure github workflow is the absolute
> requirement of a "gated" trunk. Perha
Chris Behrens wrote:
> But leaving aside whether I like it or dislike it, what really bothers me is
> that there was discussion about moving things to github. And, I was 'ok'
> with that decision to do so despite preferring bzr and LP. My 'ok' was based
> on knowing how git, github pull reques
Jay,
On Sep 4, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> I actually didn't plan on responding all that much on this
> conversation. We had months of discussion and debate about this, weeks
> upon weeks of discussion in the PPB about project autonomy and
> tooling, and the decision has been made.
>
>
> The coarse status granularity of GitHub's pull request is a
non-starter for automated patch queue management and a gated trunk.
Period. Solutions such as roundabout and hubcap must use hacks such as
looking in review comments for one or more "lgtm"s to determine if a
commit is approved to be merg
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Chuck Thier wrote:
> Taking a bit of a step back, it seems to me that the biggest thing
> that prevents us from using a pure github workflow is the absolute
> requirement of a "gated" trunk.
I think the big step backwards would be not having a gated trunk.
Humans
, September 02, 2011 4:09 AM
> To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
>
> Sandy Walsh wrote:
>> Last night I did some hacking on HubCap. HubCap is a simple script that
>> monitors Pull Requests in GitHub. It spits out
Taking a bit of a step back, it seems to me that the biggest thing
that prevents us from using a pure github workflow is the absolute
requirement of a "gated" trunk. Perhaps a better question to ask
weather or not this should be an absolute requirement. For me, it is
a nice to have, but shouldn't
I don't intend to fan the fumes here, but I think the point we are trying to
make is that the decision to use Gerrit was made before most of the community
was even aware of it -- much less having a chance to come up with a solution
like Sandy did (which, IMHO, is far more practical than the Gerr
Jay Payne wrote:
> Can we dial down the drama a bit?It's things like this that will
> discourage people from submitting new ideas. Calling just the
> introduction of a new idea a "revolt" is a diservice to the community.
Well, maybe "revolt" is not the best term, but this is about resisting
-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace@lists.launchpad.net] on behalf of
Jay Payne [lett...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 1:31 PM
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
Sandy,
Thanks for bring this up. I think it's an intere
Sandy,
Thanks for bring this up. I think it's an interesting idea and plan
on looking into it when I have some free time.
Thierry,
Seriously? "while this anti-Gerrit revolt is being sent on the ML"
Can we dial down the drama a bit?It's things like this that will
discourage people from submit
d.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
Sandy Walsh wrote:
> Last night I did some hacking on HubCap. HubCap is a simple script that
> monitors Pull Requests in GitHub. It spits out a static HTML page of the
> requests workflow status.
> [...]
I won't sp
Sandy Walsh wrote:
> Last night I did some hacking on HubCap. HubCap is a simple script that
> monitors Pull Requests in GitHub. It spits out a static HTML page of the
> requests workflow status.
> [...]
I won't speak on behalf of Monty Taylor, Jim Blair (or Jay) who are
unfortunately all in li
++ from me as well.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
> ++
>
> The closer we can get to really using GitHub the better.
>
> Dan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Sandy Walsh"
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 1:56pm
> To: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net"
> Subject: [Open
++
The closer we can get to really using GitHub the better.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: "Sandy Walsh"
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 1:56pm
To: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net"
Subject: [Openstack] A possible alternative to Gerrit ...
Hey!
Last night I did some hacking on Hu
60 matches
Mail list logo
