Bogdan, In OpenStack CI, that is configured in openstack-ci/config repository. You have to add certain lines to gerrit access lists configuration (modules/openstack_project/files/gerrit/acls/stackforge/fuel.config) for your project there:
[access refs/*] create = group <your-project-name>-core or something like that. Please, ask at openstack-infra ML or #openstack-infra for more precise advice. -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <[email protected]>wrote: > On 12/11/2013 11:06 AM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: > > Bogdan, > > You might be interested in the approach taken by Swift team for > long-term development effort of erasure coding storage option: > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-July/012102.html > > Thank you, the approach is good indeed. Do we have a rights or work-flow > for creating WIP branches of our main repos? > > > -- > Best regards, > Oleg Gelbukh > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> >> On 12/10/2013 09:14 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> We still have a few pain points left in our development process that I >>> think are easy to fix with a bunch of simple rules. I think releasing >>> 4.0 will be less painful if we try to address these. >>> >>> 1. Branch management for maintenance releases >>> >>> We already had this discussion during 3.2.1 release cycle, and agreed >>> to follow the approach that is in line with what OpenStack and most >>> other free software projects are following. Still, I think we should >>> do better at actually following the process we agreed to. >>> >>> To see how good we were at following it for 3.2.1, open two terminal >>> windows and run: >>> >>> git whatchanged 3.2..3.2-fixes >>> git whatchanged 3.2..master >>> >>> and for each commit in 3.2-fixes, try to find a matching fix in >>> master. Last time I checked there were still many cases where bugfixes >>> were merged to 3.2-fixes before (or even without) merging them to >>> master. Did anyone actually check that we're not missing any important >>> fixes from 3.2.1 in 4.0? >>> >>> We should create a new stable/4.0 branch as soon as 4.0 code freeze is >>> announced (ideally, the announcement itself should direct committers >>> to the new branch). Reviewers should REJECT all commits to stable/4.0 >>> that have not been merged into master, unless a justification is >>> provided in the COMMIT MESSAGE. >>> >> Can Jenkins help us by -1 such patches? >> I.e. Jenkins could put -1 to any patch targeted for non-master, unless >> its commits were found in master. >> >> >>> 2. Management and code review of feature development branches >>> >>> Yet another thing that everyone seems to agree on is that huge >>> long-lived feature branches with many commits and thousands of lines >>> worth of changes are evil and dangerous. Luckily, the move to Gerrit >>> will make it hard enough to maintain and merge multi-commit branches, >>> and will push people towards committing and merging changes in smaller >>> self-sufficient chunks. >>> >> That should we do for long running researches, such as HA improvements >> (started at 3.1, targeted to 4.1 only), or torrent based provisioning? >> Should we melt down hundreds of commits into a single patch in WIP branch, >> before submitting new feature to review? >> >> >>> A recent negative example is the fuel-library pull request #911 that >>> has merged 104 duplicate commits from ancient alternative history into >>> master, instead of simply rebasing a single commit. The only way to >>> prevent something like this from happening is to summarily reject >>> changes that are too large and/or contain messy revision history. >>> >> Jenkins could come to help here as well. E.g. -1, if any commit in PR are >> already present in target branch's history. >> >> >>> The other side of the same problem is holding back small reasonable >>> changes for too long, placing unnecessary burden on authors to keep >>> rebasing their change on top of other changes that got merged earlier. >>> >>> For example, my own fuel-docs pull request #67 sat unreviewed for a >>> week only to be obsoleted by the move of the repo to StackForge (after >>> being obsoleted couple more times by changes that were merged ahead of >>> it). I suspect most other developers had similar experiences. On top >>> of obvious frustration, holding a change back tempts the author to >>> keep piling changes onto the same request instead of creating a new >>> review request on top of updated master for their next set of changes. >>> To use the same example, most of the third commit on #67 should really >>> have been a separate pull request. >>> >>> The fix is once again rather obvious: when going through reviews, >>> start with fixes for critical bugs, then go through remaining reviews >>> starting with the least recently updated ones. Don't merge a review >>> request if there's an older review request that can also be merged. >>> >>> I'm using this link to see all our outstanding review requests: >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project >>> :^stackforge/fuel-.*,n,z >>> >>> Right now I see that there are review requests that have +1 from CI >>> and from reviewers (meaning they can be merged) sitting unchanged >>> since Nov 25, and a few unreviewed requests going as far back as Nov >>> 3. We shouldn't have a request sit untouched by an approver for more >>> than a week, let alone a month. If there's a any reason you don't want >>> to merge it, give it -1 and explain. Otherwise, there's no reason not >>> to give it +2. If you have time to review and merge a newer request, >>> you have time for that older one, too. >>> >>> 3. Bugs triage >>> >>> Moving our bug tracking to public launchpad was an important step >>> towards opening up our development process, now we should improve >>> visibility of our bugs triage and release management processes. In >>> addition to announcing target release dates, we should also have well >>> defined release criteria (for example, no critical bugs affecting the >>> upcoming release, no more than 5 bugs with high importantce, etc.), >>> and documented rules on how to set importance of a bug. We don't have >>> to be rigid and beaurocratic about it, but having documented criteria >>> will help all participants of the process prioritize their own work >>> and understand how it fits into the state of the whole project. It >>> will also help avoid situations like missing an important bugfix in a >>> release, by forcing us to review priorities of all open bugs before >>> announcing a release. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bogdan Dobrelya, >> Researcher TechLead, Mirantis, Inc. >> +38 (066) 051 07 53 >> Skype bogdando_at_yahoo.com >> 38, Lenina ave. >> Kharkov, Ukraine >> www.mirantis.com >> www.mirantis.ru >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Bogdan Dobrelya, > Researcher TechLead, Mirantis, Inc. > +38 (066) 051 07 53 > Skype bogdando_at_yahoo.com > 38, Lenina ave. > Kharkov, [email protected] > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
