Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional > changes that break backwards compatibility > > Jay Pipes wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 14:26 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Tim Bell wrote: > >>> +1 from me too UpgradeImpact

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Jay Pipes wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 14:26 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Tim Bell wrote: >>> +1 from me too UpgradeImpact is a much better term. >> >> So this one is already documented[1], but I don't know if it actually >> triggers anything yet. >> >> Should we configure it to post to op

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 14:26 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Tim Bell wrote: > > +1 from me too UpgradeImpact is a much better term. > > So this one is already documented[1], but I don't know if it actually > triggers anything yet. > > Should we configure it to post to openstack-operators, the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Tim Bell wrote: > +1 from me too UpgradeImpact is a much better term. So this one is already documented[1], but I don't know if it actually triggers anything yet. Should we configure it to post to openstack-operators, the same way as SecurityImpact posts to openstack-security ? [1] https://w

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

+1 from me too UpgradeImpact is a much better term. Tim > -Original Message- > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] > Sent: 07 January 2014 17:53 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 11:04 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Matt Riedemann wrote: > > There is discussion in this thread about "wouldn't it be nice to have a > > tag on commits for changes that impact upgrades?". There is. > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/016

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Day, Phil wrote: > Would be nice in this specific example though if the actual upgrade impact > was explicitly called out in the commit message. Yes, UpgradeImpact should definitely also elaborate on the exact impact, rather than expect the reviewer to deduce it from the patch. > [...] > So it l

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility Matt Riedemann wrote: > There is discussion in this thread about "wouldn't it be nice to have a > tag on commits for changes that impact upgrades?". There is. > > ht

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Matt Riedemann wrote: > There is discussion in this thread about "wouldn't it be nice to have a > tag on commits for changes that impact upgrades?". There is. > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/016619.html > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Inc

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 01/03/2014 09:44 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Thierry Carrez > > wrote: >> >> Tim Bell wrote: >> > Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 1/3/2014 10:30 AM, David Kranz wrote: On 01/03/2014 08:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tim Bell wrote: Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more appropriate for the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more when someone proposes a change they suspect could have an oper

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 01/03/2014 08:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tim Bell wrote: Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more appropriate for the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more when someone proposes a change they suspect could have an operations impact, they could highlight this

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 01/03/2014 09:44 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Thierry Carrez mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote: Tim Bell wrote: > Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more appropriate for the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more wh

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Tim Bell wrote: > > Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more > appropriate for the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more when > someone proposes a change they suspect could have an operations impact, > they could

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Tim Bell wrote: > Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more appropriate for > the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more when someone proposes a > change they suspect could have an operations impact, they could highlight > this as being one for particular focus. > > H

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

iginal Message- > > From: Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net] > > Sent: 02 January 2014 21:47 > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional > changes that break ba

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Tim Bell wrote: > >> - Changes in default behaviour: Always likely to affect existing > systems in some way. Maybe we should have an additional type of review > vote that comes from people who are recognised as reperensting large > produc

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

t tag ? Tim > -Original Message- > From: Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net] > Sent: 02 January 2014 21:47 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional > chang

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 2014-01-03 09:43:11 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote: > I disagree here - educational institutions have followed the trend, > not set it. Likewise corporate management. The trend setting occured > IMNSHO through organisations like Novell and Microsoft disrupting the > computing marketplace th

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 3 January 2014 00:53, Day, Phil wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > Thanks for a great summary. > > I don't really share your view that there is a "us vs them" attitude emerging > between operators and developers (but as someone with a foot in both camps > maybe I'm just thinking that because otherwise

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 3 January 2014 04:30, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2014-01-02 11:53:23 + (+), Day, Phil wrote: > For many of us who started working as Unix sysadmins in the 1980s or > earlier, there was no hard line between a "developer" and an > "administrator" (though the term "operator" had a much di

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 2014-01-02 11:53:23 + (+), Day, Phil wrote: [...] > I would suggest though that the criteria for core reviewers is > maybe more slanted towards developers that operators, and that it > would be worth considering if there is some way to recognised and > incorporate the different perspecti

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 01/02/2014 06:43 AM, Day, Phil wrote: > I don't really see why this thread seems to keep coming back to a position of > improvements to the review process vs changes to automated testing - to my > mind both are equally important and complementary parts of the solution: > > - Automated tests a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

w process. Regards, Phil > -Original Message- > From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org] > Sent: 02 January 2014 09:53 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional > changes that break backwards compatibi

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

ress whole classes of issues. > -Original Message- > From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > Sent: 02 January 2014 00:17 > To: Tim Bell; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functi

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Tim Bell wrote: >> - Changes in default behaviour: Always likely to affect existing systems >> in some way. Maybe we should have an additional type of review vote that >> comes from people who are recognised as reperensting large production >> deployments ? > > This is my biggest worry...

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 01/01/2014 02:16 PM, Day, Phil wrote: >> So you are really making 2 assumptions here that aren't valid: * it was known to be a backwards compatibility problem - because it wasn't, and no one provided feedback over the course of 4 days to indicate that it was (there were some alternative im

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 01/01/2014 04:30 PM, Tim Bell wrote: - Changes in default behaviour: Always likely to affect existing systems in some way. Maybe we should have an additional type of review vote that comes from people who are recognised as reperensting large production deployments ? This is my bigges

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2014-01-01 13:30:32 -0800: > > > - Changes in default behaviour: Always likely to affect existing systems > > in some way. Maybe we should have an additional type of review vote that > > comes from people who are recognised as reperensting large production

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

inal Message- > From: Day, Phil [mailto:philip@hp.com] > Sent: 01 January 2014 20:17 > To: Sean Dague; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional > changes that break backwards compatibil

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Hi Sean, and Happy New Year :-) > -Original Message- > From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > Sent: 30 December 2013 22:05 > To: Day, Phil; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for funct

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 12/29/2013 03:06 AM, Day, Phil wrote: > > > Basically, I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve - lets tease >>> that >>> out, and then talk about how to solve it. "Backwards incompatible change >>> landed" might be the problem - b

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 12/29/2013 07:58 PM, Day, Phil wrote: Hi Sean, I'm not convinced the comparison to my clean shut down change is valid here. For sure that proved that beyond a certain point (in that case months) there is no additional value in extending the review period, and no amount of review will catc

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Day, Phil wrote: > I wonder if at least part of the problem is that whilst we have > prioritisation for bugs (via severity) and blueprints (via approval and > target release) that doesn't obviously carry through into gerrit. If it was > easier to see what we'

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility On 29 December 2013 21:06, Day, Phil wrote: >> What is the minimum review period intended to accomplish? I mean: >> everyone that reviewed this *knew* it changed a def

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 12/30/2013 06:02 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > On 30 December 2013 22:51, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> IMO, switching to ext4 is a very bad idea, because ext4 doesn't support >> online resize2fs, while ext3 does, so switching to ext4 is breaking >> cloud-init!!! > > It supports it just fine. (I j

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 30 December 2013 22:51, Thomas Goirand wrote: > IMO, switching to ext4 is a very bad idea, because ext4 doesn't support > online resize2fs, while ext3 does, so switching to ext4 is breaking > cloud-init!!! It supports it just fine. (I just resized a 4TB volume to 10TB)... online. But even if

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 12/28/2013 11:21 PM, Day, Phil wrote: > Hi Folks, > > > > I know it may seem odd to be arguing for slowing down a part of the > review process, but I’d like to float the idea that there should be a > minimum review period for patches that change existing functionality in > a way that isn’t b

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

f long lived buf fixes siting with many +1s Phil Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Sean Dague Date: To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 29 December 2013 21:06, Day, Phil wrote: >> What is the minimum review period intended to accomplish? I mean: >> everyone that reviewed this *knew* it changed a default, and that guest >> OS's that did support ext3 but don't support ext4 would be broken. > > My point is that for some type of n

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 12/28/2013 11:14 AM, Tim Bell wrote: I think there is a need for an incompatible change review process which includes more of the community than just those performing the code reviews. This kind of change can cause a lot of disruption for those of us running clouds so it is great to see tha

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 12/29/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Andreas Jaeger's message of 2013-12-28 23:05:45 -0800: >> On 12/29/2013 07:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote: >>> One possible reason to want a different judgment call is that the >>> logic about impacted OS's was wrong - I claimed (correctly) th

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Excerpts from Andreas Jaeger's message of 2013-12-28 23:05:45 -0800: > On 12/29/2013 07:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > > One possible reason to want a different judgment call is that the > > logic about impacted OS's was wrong - I claimed (correctly) that every > > OS has support for ext4, but negl

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 12/29/2013 03:06 AM, Day, Phil wrote: Basically, I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve - lets tease that out, and then talk about how to solve it. "Backwards incompatible change landed" might be the problem - but since every reviewer knew it, having a longer review period is clearl

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

> -Original Message- > From: Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net] > Sent: 29 December 2013 06:50 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional > changes th

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

> -Original Message- > From: Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net] > Sent: 29 December 2013 05:36 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional > changes th

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 12/29/2013 07:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > On 29 December 2013 04:21, Day, Phil wrote: >> Hi Folks, >> >> >> >> I know it may seem odd to be arguing for slowing down a part of the review >> process, but I’d like to float the idea that there should be a minimum >> review period for patches tha

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 29 December 2013 04:21, Day, Phil wrote: > Hi Folks, > > > > I know it may seem odd to be arguing for slowing down a part of the review > process, but I’d like to float the idea that there should be a minimum > review period for patches that change existing functionality in a way that > isn’t b

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 29 December 2013 05:15, John Griffith wrote: > I think Sean made some good recommendations in the review (waiting 24 > hours as well as suggesting ML etc). It seems that cases like this > don't necessarily need mandated time requirements for review but just > need good core reviewers to say "h

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Hi Phil. Thanks for the well reasoned and poignant message urging > caution and forethought in change management. I agree with all of the > sentiments and think that we can do better in reasoning about the impact > of changes. I think this just

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

I think there is a need for an incompatible change review process which includes more of the community than just those performing the code reviews. This kind of change can cause a lot of disruption for those of us running clouds so it is great to see that you are looking for more input. In the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Hi Phil. Thanks for the well reasoned and poignant message urging caution and forethought in change management. I agree with all of the sentiments and think that we can do better in reasoning about the impact of changes. I think this just puts further exposure on the fact that Nova needs reviewers