On 11/15/2013 12:57 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 06:57 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: >> (Apologies, this started on the TC list, and really should have started >> on -dev, correctly posting here now for open discussion) >> >> There were a few chats at summit about this, mostly on the infra / >> devstack / qa side of the house. Consider the following a straw man to >> explain the current state of the world, and what I'd like to see change here >> I call out projects by name here, not to >> make fun of them, but that I think concrete examples bring the point >> home much more than abstract arguments (at least for me). >> >> This is looking at raising the bar quite a bit along the way. However, >> as someone that spends a lot of time trying to keep the whole ball of >> wax holding together, and is spending a lot of time retroactively trying >> to get projects into our integrated gate (and huge pain to everyone, as >> their gate commits get bounced by racey projects), I think we really >> need to up this bar if we want a 20 integrated project version of >> OpenStack to hold together. > > Thanks for doing this. The requirements look good to me. > > I think it's about time we gathered all requirements together and > properly documented them so people realize there's a much bigger > picture. I've started pulling together some stuff here: > > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/incubation-and-integration-requirements > > but clearly there's a lot of work to do. > > One thing I really, really want is for the rules to be accompanied with > a good explanation of what the rules are there to achieve. We cannot let > ourselves turn into a community that over-zealously applies rules to the > extent that the rules do more damage than good. > > There's always got to be a judgement call involved. I'm happy that > Ceilometer graduated, even though it doesn't have gating tests. I think > it has been a positive addition and I'd rather have it without the > gating tests than not at all. > > The guidelines like this will greatly encourage projects to up their > game and hopefully we'll rarely be faced with a generally awesome > project wanting to graduate but it not having integration tests. > However, if that did happen, we need it to at least be possible for us > to have a rational, big-picture conversation about whether some > rule-bending is the best thing overall for the project.
Absolutely, I'm completely happy to call these guidelines, this wasn't
meant as a written in stone, but as best practices. Rationale is of
utmost importance, it informs the future community why we chose to do a
thing, which also makes it clear when that guideline is no longer
relevant because something else changed.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
