On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eoghan Glynn <egl...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large
>> > > contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not
>> > > necessarily divertable on command.
>> >
>> > Sure additional cross-project resources can and need to be ponied up,
>> but I
>> > am doubtful that will be enough.
>> OK, so what exactly do you suspect wouldn't be enough, for what
>> exactly?
> I am not sure what would be enough to get OpenStack back in a position
> where more developers/users are happier with the current state of affairs.
> Which is why I think we may want to try several things.
>> Is it the likely number of such new resources, or the level of domain-
>> expertise that they can be realistically be expected bring to the
>> table, or the period of time to on-board them, or something else?
> Yes, all of the above.
>> And which cross-project concern do you think is most strained by the
>> current set of projects in the integrated release? Is it:
>>  * QA
>>  * infra
>>  * release management
>>  * oslo
>>  * documentation
>>  * stable-maint
>> or something else?
> Good question.
> IMHO QA, Infra and release management are probably the most strained. But
> I also think there is something missing from this list. Many of the
> projects are hitting similar issues and end up solving them in different
> ways, which just leads to more confusion for the end user. Today we have a
> decent model for rolling out cross-project libraries (Oslo) but we don't
> have a good way of having broader cross project discussions such as: API
> standards (such as discoverability of features), logging standards,
> aligning on concepts (different projects have different terms and concepts
> for scaling and isolating failure domains), and an overall better user
> experience. So I think we have a whole class of cross project issues that
> we have not even begun addressing.

Docs are very, very strained. We scope docs to integrated only and we're
still lacking in quality, completeness, and speed of reviews.

At this week's extra TC meeting [1] we discussed only the difficulties with
integration and growth. I also want us to think about the cost of
integration with the current definitions and metrics we have. We discussed
whether the difficulties lie in the sheer number of projects, or is the
difficulty in the complexity due to cross-integration?

For docs I can point to "sheer number of projects" which is why we scope to
integrated only. But even that definition is becoming difficult for
cross-project so I want to explore the cross-project implications before
the "sheer number" implications.

One of the metrics I'd like to see is a metric of "most cross-project drag"
for all programs. The measures might be:
- number of infrastructure nodes used to test
- number of infrastructure jobs needed
- most failing tests
- incompleteness of test suite
- incompleteness of docs
- difficulty for users to use (API, CLI, or configuration) due to lack of
docs or hard-to-understand complexities
- most bugs affecting more than one project (cross-project bugs would count
against both projects)
- performance in production environments due to interlocking project needs
- any others?

We know nova/neutron carries a lot of this integration drag. We know
there's not an "easy button" -- but should we focus on the hard problems
before integrating many more projects? For now I think our answer is no,
but I want to hear what others think about that consideration as an
additional metric before moving projects through our incubator.



>> Each of those teams has quite different prerequisite skill-sets, and
>> the on-ramp for someone jumping in seeking to make a positive impact
>> will vary from team to team.
>> Different approaches have been tried on different teams, ranging from
>> dedicated project-liaisons (Oslo) to shared cores (Sahara/Infra) to
>> newly assigned dedicated resources (QA/Infra). Which of these models
>> might work in your opinion? Which are doomed to failure, and why?
>> So can you be more specific here on why you think adding more cross-
>> project resources won't be enough to address an identified shortage
>> of cross-project resources, while de-integrating projects would be?
>> And, please, can we put the proverbial strawman back in its box on
>> this thread? It's all well and good as a polemic device, but doesn't
>> really move the discussion forward in a constructive way, IMO.
>> Thanks,
>> Eoghan
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to