Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposal to require bugs for tech debt

[Markus Zoeller]

On 16.08.2017 18:40, Alex Schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Markus Zoeller
>  wrote:
>> On 16.08.2017 02:59, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alex Schultz  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
> 

No biggie. A single project was my implicit assumption, that's true.
Wish you good luck.

-- 
Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z)

>> --
>> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposal to require bugs for tech debt

[Alex Schultz]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Markus Zoeller
 wrote:
> On 16.08.2017 02:59, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alex Schultz  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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposal to require bugs for tech debt

[Markus Zoeller]

On 16.08.2017 02:59, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alex Schultz  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.

-- 
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposal to require bugs for tech debt

[Emilien Macchi]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alex Schultz  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.

> 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



-- 
Emilien Macchi

__
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-dev] [tripleo] Proposal to require bugs for tech debt

[Alex Schultz]

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.

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