cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebgoa <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
Date Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:19:12 GMT

On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:21 AM, David Nalley <> wrote:

> Hi Sebastien:
> So I like the idea of:
> 1. Us putting up all inbound code for review.
> 2. Gating that code on a testing pass
> 3. Having someone else look at it before committing.
> I don't think that should mean that all code that works gets an
> immediate pass. I also don't think that we should have n RMs for
> branches. It doesn't scale, and it moves us from consensus to
> authoritarian. I am all for reverting things that break, but think
> that should be a community wide responsibility, not one or two
> policemen.
> I also think this is a huge shift in process. Right now we have 145
> open patches on ReviewBoard. We average scores of commits per day; so
> understand that this is a huge, gigantic shift in how we work. This
> requires a high level of commitment from everyone, and frankly it's
> likely to bury TravisCI.
> I also worry about the effect of this on our ability to timely ship
> 4.5. We have 14 Critical and blocker bugs for 4.5, and part of me
> worries that this is a distraction for 4.5 release efforts.
> Please don't take this as discounting your proposal or your concerns.
> I don't think that many folks disagrees in principle with the first 3
> points above. But timing, and implementation details may be an issue.
> --David

I respectfully disagree with you. I hear your concerns but I feel that we are at a stage where
we need drastic measures.
I understand this may sound like an authoritarian proposal but this is how I see it, I don't
like the way we develop cloudstack and I am not even a software engineer.

I am off for 2 weeks, and won't be able to check on this or defend this proposal.


> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:00 AM, sebgoa <> wrote:
>> After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following proposal.
>> [Proposal]
>> ----
>> All commits come through github PR, *even* for committers. We declare a moratorium
period (agreed suspension of activity) during which direct commit to master is forbidden.
>> Only the master RM is allowed to merge PR in master (we define a master RM). If direct
commit to master is done, master RM reverts without warning. Same for 4.5 and 4.4. branches.
>> ----
>> This is drastic and I am sure some folks will not like it, but here is my justification
for such a measure:
>> [Reasons]:
>> ----
>> Our commit and release processes have so far been based on the idea that development
happens on master and that a release branch is cut from master (unstable development branch).
Then a different set of community members harden the release branch, QA and bring it to GA
level. During that time development keeps on going in master.
>> This is an OK process if we have the luxury of having a QA team and can cope with
split personality of being developers and release managers.
>> My point of view is that as a community we cannot afford such a split brain organization
and our experience overt the last year proves my point (delayed release date, broken builds,
features merged without warning…)
>> We can avoid this by cutting a release branch from a stable one (from the start),
then as you (Daan) have mentioned several times, fix bugs in the release branch and merge
them back in the stable source of the release (be it master).
>> Feature development need to be done outside master, period. Not only for non-committers
but also for committers. And merge request need to be called. This will help review and avoid
>> New git workflow were proposed and shutdown, mostly calling for better CI to solve
quality issues. CI will not solve our quality issues alone. We need to better police ourselves.
>> To avoid long discussions, I propose this simple but drastic measure. We move all
our commits to github PR until 4.5 is out, this stands for committers and non-committers,
direct commits (especially to master) would be reverted immediately.
>> ----
>> Our development and release process is broken, we cannot continue like this, let's
fix it.
>> [1]
>> -sebastien

View raw message