-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17/06/14 02:46, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 06/16/2014 08:37 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Sean Dague wrote: >>> Hacking 0.9 series was released pretty late for Juno. The entire >>> check queue was flooded this morning with requirements proposals >>> failing pep8 because of it (so at 6am EST we were waiting 1.5 hrs >>> for a check node). >>> >>> The previous soft policy with pep8 updates was that we set a >>> pep8 version basically release week, and changes stopped being >>> done for style after first milestone. >>> >>> I think in the spirit of that we should revert the hacking >>> requirements update back to the 0.8 series for Juno. We're past >>> milestone 1, so shouldn't be working on style only fixes at this >>> point. >>> >>> Proposed review here - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100231/ >>> >>> I also think in future hacking major releases need to happen >>> within one week of release, or not at all for that series. > >> We may also have reached a size where changing style rules is just >> too costly, whatever the moment in the cycle. I think it's good >> that we have rules to enforce a minimum of common style, but the >> added value of those extra rules is limited, while their impact on >> the common gate grows as we add more projects. > > A few thoughts: > > 1) I disagree with the proposition that hacking updates can only > happen in the first week after release. I get that there needs to be > a cutoff, but I don't think one week is reasonable. Even if we > release in the first week, you're still going to be dealing with > hacking updates for the rest of the cycle as projects adopt the new > rules at their leisure. I don't like retroactively applying milestone > 1 as a cutoff either, although I could see making that the policy > going forward.
Can't we move to a mode of enabling rules instead of ignoring them? If we did this in tox.ini then it wouldn't matter when you release hacking. [hacking] errors = H306,... ignore = H101 So if you upgraded hacking you would not get the new checks generating errors, but only warnings. I guess the list of rules to error on would get big, but maybe we could have some short cuts (H3*,H2*)? At least the projects are a bit more in control of what rule they add. - -Angus > > 2) Given that most of the changes involved in fixing the new failures > are trivial, I think we should encourage combining the fixes into one > commit. We _really_ don't need separate commits to fix H305 and H307. > This doesn't help much with the reviewer load, but it should reduce > the gate load somewhat. It violates the one change-one commit rule, > but "A foolish consistency..." > > 3) We should start requiring specs for all new hacking rules to make > sure we have consensus (I think oslo-specs is the place for this). 2 > +2's doesn't really accomplish that. We also may need to raise the > bar for inclusion of new rules - while I agree with all of the new > ones added in hacking .9, I wonder if some of them are really necessary. > > 4) I don't think we're at a point where we should freeze hacking > completely, however. The import grouping and long line wrapping > checks in particular are things that reviewers have to enforce today, > and that has a significant, if less well-defined, cost too. If we're > really going to say those rules can't be enforced by hacking then we > need to remove them from our hacking guidelines and start the long > process of educating reviewers to stop requiring them. I'd rather > just deal with the pain of adding them to hacking one time and never > have to think about them again. I'm less convinced the other two that > were added in .9 are necessary, but in any case these are discussions > that should happen in spec reviews going forward. > > 5) We may want to come up with some way to globally disable pep8 > checks we don't want to enforce, since we don't have any control over > that but probably don't want to just stop updating pep8. That could > make the pain of these updates much less. > > I could probably come up with a few more, but this is already too > wall-of-texty for my tastes. :-) > > -Ben > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTn2eqAAoJEFrDYBLxZjWo9dkIAJ55WTdVZgIHEFJGp+7Px8jC FxsBzRvDKeDTN6ONXUtE82G10ru6UR0HNndfhgbdEVQSazdcavbd/Q0AG+tmDyaE 7PBUpJ3bVIQVpJQ9tz/Xo4dqvsZhsOZBo28iLJyShU+VYy05I16WCGpsS0NUlD95 ND78vjwUCNnjbzkOgBjt6V0QsuWpEZynIR6PfRkUJaaT+gFtrhAG7n4aQmgYnJri 9huTnEjyyg9KldlinxLxVP9nk2uVoKD7sfDAvREAjstFeRK4tVcdspB6xxPkfTKA RDAG1tGT0yvD3VtgqajFlJvImUyV7YN3/zXyXxKeb0301ouWpFeyiSZ1jqsK6Nc= =/Tmf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
