On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Markus Zoeller <mzoel...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 16.08.2017 02:59, Emilien Macchi wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alex Schultz <aschu...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Hey folks, >>> >>> I'm proposing that in order to track tech debt that we're adding in as >>> part of development that we create a way to track these items and not >>> approve them without a bug (and a reference to said bug)[0]. Please >>> take a moment to review the proposed policy and comment. I would like >>> to start this for the queens cycle. >> >> I also think we should frequently review the status of these bugs. >> Maybe unofficially from time to time and officially during milestone-3 >> of each cycle. >> >> I like the proposal so far, thanks. >> > > FWIW, for another (in-house) project, I create a page called "technical > debt" in the normal docs directory of the project. That way, I can add > the "reminder" with the same commit which introduced the technical debt > in the code. Similar to what OpenStack already does with the > release-notes. The list of technical debt items is then always visible > in the docs and not a query in the bug-tracker with tags (or something > like that). > Just an idea, maybe it applicable here. >
Yea that would a good choice if we only had a single or a low number of projects under the tripleo umbrella. The problem is we have many different components which contribute to tech debt so storing it in each repo would be hard to track. I proposed bugs because it would be a singular place for reporting. For projects with fewer deliverable storing it like release notes is a good option. Thanks, -Alex > -- > Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z) > >>> A real world example of where this would beneficial would be the >>> workaround we had for buggy ssh[1]. This patch was merged 6 months ago >>> to work around an issue in ssh that was recently fixed. However we >>> would most likely never have remembered to revert this. It was only >>> because someone[2] spotted it and mentioned it that it is being >>> reverted now. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Alex >>> >>> [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494044/ >>> [1] >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/6e8e27488da31b3b282fe1ce5e07939b3fa11b2f,n,z >>> [2] Thanks pabelanger >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
