Looks like fuel.config already have this configuration actually: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/modules/openstack_project/files/gerrit/acls/stackforge/fuel.config#n5
Did you check if you actually can create a branch? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <[email protected]>wrote: > On 12/11/2013 11:52 AM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: > > 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. > > > Looks like the openstack-ci/config repo is about projects management, not > its WIP branches - the only reference for branch named "feature/ec" > (mentioned in > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-July/012102.html) > I've found is: > ./modules/gerritbot/files/gerritbot_channel_config.yaml: > openstack-swift: > events: > - patchset-created > - change-merged > - x-vrif-minus-2 > projects: > - openstack/swift > - openstack/swift-bench > - openstack/python-swiftclient > branches: > - master > - feature/ec > > So, it is still unclear how to create new branches for review... > I will consult with #openstack-infra anyway, thank you. > I believe we should have this question clearly elaborated for our R&D > teams. > > > > -- > 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] >> >> > > > -- > 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
