And do not use push, use `git review` without parameters
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Miroslav Anashkin <[email protected]>wrote: > Please fork stackforge repo to your account first and use the forked > version > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 12/11/2013 01:35 PM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: >> >> 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? >> >> Yes, I've tried git push -u origin foo_branch and I've got >> ERROR: Permission to stackforge/fuel-web(library).git denied to bogdando. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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] >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > > *Kind Regards* > > *Miroslav Anashkin**L2 support engineer**,* > *Mirantis Inc.* > *+7(495)640-4944 (office receptionist)* > *+1(650)587-5200 (office receptionist, call from US)* > *35b, Bld. 3, Vorontsovskaya St.* > *Moscow**, Russia, 109147.* > > www.mirantis.com > > [email protected] > > -- *Kind Regards* *Miroslav Anashkin**L2 support engineer**,* *Mirantis Inc.* *+7(495)640-4944 (office receptionist)* *+1(650)587-5200 (office receptionist, call from US)* *35b, Bld. 3, Vorontsovskaya St.* *Moscow**, Russia, 109147.* www.mirantis.com [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
