[Rdo-list] OPM downstream patches

[Emilien Macchi]

On 01/13/2016 11:36 AM, Lukas Bezdicka wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 13:16 -0500, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> Also, the way we're packaging OPM is really bad.
>>
>> * we have no SHA1 for each module we have in OPM
> /usr/share/openstack-puppet/Puppetfile

Nope, this file is not containing SHA1 for the actual modules we have in
OPM. This file was used (and is 100% useless now) by SpinalStack.

>> * we are not able to validate each module
> you have Puppetfile and our own patches as patches to tar

No, see my previous comment.

>> * package tarball is not pure. All other OpenStack RPMS take upstream
>> tarball so we can easily compare but in OPM... no way to do it.
> Tarballs are always taken from github releases:
> https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-puppet-modules/releases

You can't pull a tarball per module. Modules have been introduced by a
RAW copy-paste.

> And yes, dropping single package and creating metapackage is the way to
> go.

I would like to see a more constructive reply from people actually
authors on OPM.

We want to build a plan for the future release that will radically
change the way we build & ship OPM.

>>
>> Those issues are really critical, I would like to hear from OPM
>> folks,
>> and find solutions that we will work on during the following weeks.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On 01/12/2016 12:37 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>>> So I started an etherpad to discuss why we have so much downstream
>>> patches in Puppet modules.
>>>
>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/opm-patches
>>>
>>> In my opinion, we should follow some best practices:
>>>
>>> * upstream first. If you find a bug, submit the patch upstream,
>>> wait for
>>> at least a positive review from a core and also successful CI jobs.
>>> Then
>>> you can backport it downstream if urgent.
>>> * backport it to stable branches when needed. The patch we want is
>>> in
>>> master and not stable? It's too easy to backport it in OPM. Do the
>>> backport in upstream/stable first, it will help to stay updated
>>> with
>>> upstream.
>>> * don't change default parameters, don't override them. Our
>>> installers
>>> are able to override any parameter so do not hardcode this kind of
>>> change.
>>> * keep up with upstream: if you have an upstream patch under review
>>> that
>>> is already in OPM: keep it alive and make sure it lands as soon as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> UPSTREAM FIRST please please please (I'll send you cookies if you
>>> want).
>>>
>>> If you have any question about an upstream patch, please join
>>> #puppet-openstack (freenode) and talk to the group. We're doing
>>> reviews
>>> every day and it's not difficult to land a patch.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, I would like to justify each of our backports in
>>> the
>>> etherpad and clean-up a maximum of them.
>>>
>>> Thank you for reading so far,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rdo-list mailing list
>>> Rdo-list at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rdo-list mailing list
>> Rdo-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>>
>> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com

-- 
Emilien Macchi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.rdoproject.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160113/5c56a231/attachment.sig>