Obviously if the time of fixing the downstream is more than the time of reverting the patch we should revisit yesterday’s TSC decision. In this new situation I would vote to revert.
BR/Luis > On Apr 20, 2018, at 8:13 AM, Faseela K <[email protected]> wrote: > > We see issues in ovsdb plugin also now. > If functionalities are broken due to the patch, it is taking a lot of time > for us also to debug and figure out where and all it is causing breakages. > > Thanks, > Faseela > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Luis > Gomez > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 8:36 PM > To: Michael Vorburger <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; tsc > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Release > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [mdsal-dev] IMPORTANT: Build breakage in > openflowplugin due IP address NoZone changes > > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 3:22 AM, Michael Vorburger <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Luis Gomez <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > FYI I just opened a grievance to remind what we did today is exceptional and > to be avoided in future: > > https://jira.opendaylight.org/browse/TSC-92 > <https://jira.opendaylight.org/browse/TSC-92> > > I've commented in TSC-92 arguing that I'm struggling to understand how "it > stands, and pointed by Tom, backing out the change looks to be a daunting > task"… > > Please ask Tom P and Robert, both said during TSC call it was lot of work to > revert, in addition nobody except Anil saw any problem wth the patch so that > was the other reason it went through. > > > Tx, > M. > -- > Michael Vorburger, Red Hat > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | IRC: vorburger @freenode > | ~ = http://vorburger.ch <http://vorburger.ch/> > > > > BR/Luis > > On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Added the TSC. > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Robert & Tom, > > Regardless of the merits of this particular change, I agree with Vishal & > Luis that this is a failure of communication. The weather process needed to > have been followed - with the possibility for downstream projects to not > accept the change for legitimate reasons. Please do so in the future. > > The most ideal solution as suggested by Luis below & initially agreed by Tom > would have been to back out the change, discuss it completely (in a the TWS > call) and go ahead with the decision after the TWS call. As it stands, and > pointed by Tom, backing out the change looks to be a daunting task. Since > that is the case, let us do the following: > 0) Unblock the projects by whatever means - whether it is projects merging > the changes to accommodate the original patch or reverting > 1) Robert, please create the weather report with the existing change > 2) in the meantime people can chime in on the thread and try to resolve it > 3) we WILL continue the discussion on the Monday TWS if this is not resolved > by Monday. Casey has this meeting scheduled in any case. > > Thanks, > Abhijit > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Luis Gomez <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2018, at 7:16 AM, Tom Pantelis <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Vishal Thapar <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Could you please take a look at tell what I need to fix this breakage? I am > still not sure why is such a basic code breaking like this. > > > Perhaps we should just revert the mdsal patch until this can get sorted out > downstream - maybe discuss on the TSC call today . > > +1, without knowing the technical details of the change, I think we are > missing something fundamental in the upstream-downstream communication: in > general for any valid change coming from upstream breaking downstream we need > a weather report including explanation why the change is required and some > pointers on how to fix the potential failures. This gives a chance for > downstream projects to evaluate and accept the change as well as to prepare > the required patches to minimize the impact. If the breakage was > unintentional or unexpected (no weather fired), I think the right thing to do > is to revert and start over writing the weather report. > > > > > Regards, > Vishal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > mdsal-dev mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/mdsal-dev > <https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/mdsal-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > openflowplugin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev > <https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > openflowplugin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev > <https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > mdsal-dev mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/mdsal-dev > <https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/mdsal-dev>
_______________________________________________ openflowplugin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev
