atom feed48 messages in net.launchpad.lists.openstackRe: [Openstack] best practices for me...
FromSent OnAttachments
Andrew BogottJul 2, 2012 12:16 pm 
Russell BryantJul 2, 2012 12:26 pm 
Joshua HarlowJul 2, 2012 2:41 pm 
Joshua HarlowJul 2, 2012 2:54 pm 
Gabriel HurleyJul 2, 2012 3:18 pm 
John PostlethwaitJul 2, 2012 4:42 pm 
Christopher B FerrisJul 2, 2012 5:41 pm 
Thierry CarrezJul 3, 2012 2:31 am 
Thierry CarrezJul 3, 2012 2:34 am 
Doug HellmannJul 3, 2012 5:37 am 
James E. BlairJul 3, 2012 6:55 am 
Joshua HarlowJul 3, 2012 10:46 am 
Dan PrinceJul 3, 2012 10:59 am 
Gabriel HurleyJul 3, 2012 11:59 am 
Andrew BogottJul 3, 2012 12:47 pm 
Joshua HarlowJul 3, 2012 2:09 pm 
James E. BlairJul 3, 2012 2:54 pm 
Eric WindischJul 3, 2012 3:47 pm 
Andrew BogottJul 3, 2012 3:54 pm 
Gabriel HurleyJul 3, 2012 4:53 pm 
Timothy DalyJul 3, 2012 5:27 pm 
Monty TaylorJul 3, 2012 6:17 pm 
Thierry CarrezJul 4, 2012 2:56 am 
Gabriel HurleyJul 4, 2012 3:17 pm 
Eric WindischJul 4, 2012 4:11 pm 
Christopher B FerrisJul 5, 2012 4:29 am 
Sean DagueJul 5, 2012 6:55 am 
Doug HellmannJul 5, 2012 7:16 am 
Joshua HarlowJul 5, 2012 10:21 am 
Mark McLoughlinJul 18, 2012 2:01 am 
Mark McLoughlinJul 18, 2012 2:13 am 
Mark McLoughlinJul 18, 2012 2:16 am 
Mark McLoughlinJul 18, 2012 2:23 am 
Thierry CarrezJul 18, 2012 4:00 pm 
Doug HellmannJul 23, 2012 8:50 am 
Thierry CarrezJul 23, 2012 8:59 am 
Doug HellmannJul 23, 2012 9:04 am 
Eric WindischAug 2, 2012 1:05 pm 
Christopher B FerrisAug 2, 2012 2:08 pm 
Vishvananda IshayaAug 2, 2012 3:47 pm 
Jay PipesAug 2, 2012 5:18 pm 
Zhongyue LuoAug 2, 2012 5:24 pm 
Eric WindischAug 2, 2012 5:51 pm 
Mark McLoughlinAug 2, 2012 10:26 pm 
Thierry CarrezAug 3, 2012 2:49 am 
Thierry CarrezAug 3, 2012 4:02 am 
Jay PipesAug 3, 2012 9:25 am 
Eric WindischAug 3, 2012 9:34 am 
Subject:Re: [Openstack] best practices for merging common into specific projects
From:Gabriel Hurley (Gabr@nebula.com)
Date:Jul 3, 2012 11:59:12 am
List:net.launchpad.lists.openstack

The notion that copying code is any protection against APIs that may change is a
red herring. It's the exact same effect as pegging a version of a dependency
(whether it's a commit hash or a real version number), except now you have code
duplication. An unstable upgrade path is an unstable upgrade path, and copying
the code into the project doesn't alleviate the pain for the project if the
upstream library decides to change its APIs.

Also, we're really calling something used by more or less all the core projects
"incubated"? ;-) Seems like it's past the proof-of-concept phase now, at least
for many parts of common. Questions of API stability are an issue unto
themselves.

Anyhow, I'm +1 on turning it into a real library of its own, as a couple people
suggested already.

- Gabriel

-----Original Message----- From: openstack-bounces+gabriel.hurley=nebu@lists.launchpad.net [mailto:openstack- bounces+gabriel.hurley=nebu@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of James E. Blair Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:56 AM To: andr@gmail.com Cc: open@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openstack] best practices for merging common into specific projects

Andrew Bogott <abog@wikimedia.org> writes:

I. As soon as a patch drops into common, the patch author should submit merge-from-common patches to all affected projects. A. (This should really be done by a bot, but that's not going to happen overnight)

Actually, I think with our current level of tooling, we can have Jenkins do this (run by Zuul as a post-merge job on openstack-common).

I very much believe that the long-term goal should be to make openstack- common a library -- so nothing I say here should be construed against that. But as long as it's in an incubation phase, if doing something like this would help move things along, we can certainly implement it, and fairly easily.

Note that a naive implementation might generate quite a bit of review spam if several small changes land to openstack-common (there would then be changes*projects number of reviews in gerrit). We have some code laying around which might be useful here that looks for an existing open change and amends it; at least that would let us have at most only one open merge- from-common-change per-project.

Okay, that's all on that; I don't want to derail the main conversation, and I'd much rather it just be a library if we're close to being ready for that.