OpenStack maint team

[Mark McLoughlin]

Hey,

Everyone on the To: list has commit permissions on some of the OpenStack
packages. It's quite a big list! :-)

As more people get involved with packaging OpenStack in Fedora/EPEL, I
think we need to figure out how to co-ordinate ourselves better. I had
hoped we could use the cloud SIG mailing list for this but, in practice,
I think folks are reluctant to spam everyone on the list with the nitty
gritty details of what they're working on.

I'm always reluctant to start another mailing list, but I think it might
be warranted here. What say you to openstack(a)lists.fp.org or even
openstack-maint(a)lists.fp.org? Maybe #fedora-openstack on Freenode too?

On a related note, I've been quick to approve requests for commit
permissions on these packages in order to encourage folks to get
involved. However, quite a few folks have ever used these permissions so
I'm starting to think we should get require folks to have an actual
contribution ready to commit before approving these requests.

Thoughts on either of those?

Thanks,
Mark.

[Russell Bryant]

On 11/11/2011 12:08 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>  Hey,
>
>  Everyone on the To: list has commit permissions on some of the OpenStack
>  packages. It's quite a big list! :-)
>
>  As more people get involved with packaging OpenStack in Fedora/EPEL, I
>  think we need to figure out how to co-ordinate ourselves better. I had
>  hoped we could use the cloud SIG mailing list for this but, in practice,
>  I think folks are reluctant to spam everyone on the list with the nitty
>  gritty details of what they're working on.
>
>  I'm always reluctant to start another mailing list, but I think it might
>  be warranted here. What say you to openstack(a)lists.fp.org or even
>  openstack-maint(a)lists.fp.org? Maybe #fedora-openstack on Freenode too?
>  
The fedora-cloud list seems fine with me.  It's pretty quiet otherwise. 
  Discussing anything about OpenStack in Fedora seems very on topic to me.

>  On a related note, I've been quick to approve requests for
> commit
>  permissions on these packages in order to encourage folks to get
>  involved. However, quite a few folks have ever used these permissions so
>  I'm starting to think we should get require folks to have an actual
>  contribution ready to commit before approving these requests. 
Makes sense.  I won't be offended if you revoke mine.  :-)

Having more than is actually necessary may also lead to some confusion 
about who should be contacted if issues arise.

-- 
Russell Bryant

[Matt Domsch]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:13:07AM -0600, Russell Bryant wrote:
>  On 11/11/2011 12:08 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>  > Hey,
>  >
>  > Everyone on the To: list has commit permissions on some of the OpenStack
>  > packages. It's quite a big list! :-)
>  >
>  > As more people get involved with packaging OpenStack in Fedora/EPEL, I
>  > think we need to figure out how to co-ordinate ourselves better. I had
>  > hoped we could use the cloud SIG mailing list for this but, in practice,
>  > I think folks are reluctant to spam everyone on the list with the nitty
>  > gritty details of what they're working on.
>  >
>  > I'm always reluctant to start another mailing list, but I think it might
>  > be warranted here. What say you to openstack(a)lists.fp.org or even
>  > openstack-maint(a)lists.fp.org? Maybe #fedora-openstack on Freenode too?
>  >
>  
>  The fedora-cloud list seems fine with me.  It's pretty quiet otherwise. 
>    Discussing anything about OpenStack in Fedora seems very on topic to me. 
+1, and stay in #fedora-cloud too please.

-- 
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist
Dell | Office of the CTO

[David Nalley]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hey,
>
>  Everyone on the To: list has commit permissions on some of the OpenStack
>  packages. It's quite a big list! :-)
>
>  As more people get involved with packaging OpenStack in Fedora/EPEL, I
>  think we need to figure out how to co-ordinate ourselves better. I had
>  hoped we could use the cloud SIG mailing list for this but, in practice,
>  I think folks are reluctant to spam everyone on the list with the nitty
>  gritty details of what they're working on.
>
>  I'm always reluctant to start another mailing list, but I think it might
>  be warranted here. What say you to openstack(a)lists.fp.org or even
>  openstack-maint(a)lists.fp.org? Maybe #fedora-openstack on Freenode too? 
I don't think we have yet hit the traffic level that justifies
segmenting. Since September 1st there have only been 8 openstack
threads on the cloud list. I also think there is a tremendous benefit
in the wider visibility that the cloud sig list brings. If folks won't
'spam' the cloud list, I find it unlikely they'd spam the openstack
list. Similar thoughts re the irc channel.


>  On a related note, I've been quick to approve requests for commit
>  permissions on these packages in order to encourage folks to get
>  involved. However, quite a few folks have ever used these permissions so
>  I'm starting to think we should get require folks to have an actual
>  contribution ready to commit before approving these requests.
>  
Provided they are a packager already, I don't see much of a downside
for liberally granting access. It's true that when everyone is
responsible that no one is, but better to be too permissive than too
restrictive.


--David

[Pádraig Brady]

On 11/11/2011 05:31 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>  On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Mark McLoughlin
> <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Everyone on the To: list has commit permissions on some of the OpenStack
> > packages. It's quite a big list! :-)
> >
> > As more people get involved with packaging OpenStack in Fedora/EPEL, I
> > think we need to figure out how to co-ordinate ourselves better. I had
> > hoped we could use the cloud SIG mailing list for this but, in practice,
> > I think folks are reluctant to spam everyone on the list with the nitty
> > gritty details of what they're working on.
> >
> > I'm always reluctant to start another mailing list, but I think it might
> > be warranted here. What say you to openstack(a)lists.fp.org or even
> > openstack-maint(a)lists.fp.org? Maybe #fedora-openstack on Freenode too?
>  
>  I don't think we have yet hit the traffic level that justifies
>  segmenting. Since September 1st there have only been 8 openstack
>  threads on the cloud list. I also think there is a tremendous benefit
>  in the wider visibility that the cloud sig list brings. If folks won't
>  'spam' the cloud list, I find it unlikely they'd spam the openstack
>  list. Similar thoughts re the irc channel.
>  
>  
> >
> > On a related note, I've been quick to approve requests for commit
> > permissions on these packages in order to encourage folks to get
> > involved. However, quite a few folks have ever used these permissions so
> > I'm starting to think we should get require folks to have an actual
> > contribution ready to commit before approving these requests.
> >
>  
>  Provided they are a packager already, I don't see much of a downside
>  for liberally granting access. It's true that when everyone is
>  responsible that no one is, but better to be too permissive than too
>  restrictive.
>  
>  
>  --David 
I'm with David on both points.

cheers,
Pádraig.

[David Busby]

Hi,

On 11 Nov 2011, at 17:31, David Nalley wrote:

>  On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Mark McLoughlin
> <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > Everyone on the To: list has commit permissions on some of the OpenStack
> > packages. It's quite a big list! :-)
> > 
> > As more people get involved with packaging OpenStack in Fedora/EPEL, I
> > think we need to figure out how to co-ordinate ourselves better. I had
> > hoped we could use the cloud SIG mailing list for this but, in practice,
> > I think folks are reluctant to spam everyone on the list with the nitty
> > gritty details of what they're working on.
> > 
> > I'm always reluctant to start another mailing list, but I think it might
> > be warranted here. What say you to openstack(a)lists.fp.org or even
> > openstack-maint(a)lists.fp.org? Maybe #fedora-openstack on Freenode too?
>  
>  I don't think we have yet hit the traffic level that justifies
>  segmenting. Since September 1st there have only been 8 openstack
>  threads on the cloud list. I also think there is a tremendous benefit
>  in the wider visibility that the cloud sig list brings. If folks won't
>  'spam' the cloud list, I find it unlikely they'd spam the openstack
>  list. Similar thoughts re the irc channel. 
fedora-openstack @ freenode is a good idea, as it means for one I can keep epel related
topics out of openstack-dev which I keep being asked to go into #openstack to discuss 

>  
>  
> > 
> > On a related note, I've been quick to approve requests for commit
> > permissions on these packages in order to encourage folks to get
> > involved. However, quite a few folks have ever used these permissions so
> > I'm starting to think we should get require folks to have an actual
> > contribution ready to commit before approving these requests.
> > 
>  
>  Provided they are a packager already, I don't see much of a downside
>  for liberally granting access. It's true that when everyone is
>  responsible that no one is, but better to be too permissive than too
>  restrictive.
>   
As this is my first sponsored package I can't really say one way or the other, judging
by the team size now this may begin to be a good idea.


>  --David 
-----

David Busby

Blog: http://saiweb.co.uk
Github: https://github.com/Oneiroi
Fedora: oneiroi(a)fedoraproject.org
Irc: Oneiroi / DBuzz @ irc.freenode.org
Jabber / Gtalk: d.busby(a)saiweb.co.uk

[Alan Pevec]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:16 PM, David Busby <d.busby(a)saiweb.co.uk&gt; wrote:
>  fedora-openstack @ freenode is a good idea, as it means for one I can
> keep
>  epel related topics out of openstack-dev which I keep being asked to go into
>  #openstack to discuss 
There's now #openstack-packaging

BTW, I'll refresh keystone with the latest snapshot from stable/diabolo
Note that they've changed version schema on _stable_
https://review.openstack.org/#change,1359
so I'll have to add Epoch

Alan

[Mark McLoughlin]

On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 00:02 +0100, Alan Pevec wrote:
>  On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:16 PM, David Busby
> <d.busby(a)saiweb.co.uk&gt; wrote:
>  > fedora-openstack @ freenode is a good idea, as it means for one I can keep
>  > epel related topics out of openstack-dev which I keep being asked to go into
>  > #openstack to discuss
>  
>  There's now #openstack-packaging 
Yep.

>  BTW, I'll refresh keystone with the latest snapshot from
> stable/diabolo
>  Note that they've changed version schema on _stable_
>  https://review.openstack.org/#change,1359
>  so I'll have to add Epoch 
Hmm, why is Epoch needed? We're already using version == 2011.3 in F-16,
isn't that the scheme they've switched to?

Cheers,
Mark.

[Alan Pevec]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > Note that they've changed version schema on _stable_
> > https://review.openstack.org/#change,1359
> > so I'll have to add Epoch
>
>  Hmm, why is Epoch needed? We're already using version == 2011.3 in F-16,
>  isn't that the scheme they've switched to? 
I didn't find other upstream discussions about it, but looking at
comments in the above gerrit change, it looks like version is now
0.9.1 or did I misunderstood?

>  Thierry Carrez		Nov 7
>  Patch Set 1:
>  OK, then given that the Diablo branch had version=0.9, I think this should have:
>  RELEASE_VERSION = "0.9" RELEASE_VERSION_FINAL = True
>  or: RELEASE_VERSION = "0.9.1" RELEASE_VERSION_FINAL = True

[Mark McLoughlin]

Hey,

On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 21:20 +0100, Alan Pevec wrote:
>  On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Mark McLoughlin
> <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >> Note that they've changed version schema on _stable_
>  >> https://review.openstack.org/#change,1359
>  >> so I'll have to add Epoch
>  >
>  > Hmm, why is Epoch needed? We're already using version == 2011.3 in F-16,
>  > isn't that the scheme they've switched to?
>  
>  I didn't find other upstream discussions about it, but looking at
>  comments in the above gerrit change, it looks like version is now
>  0.9.1 or did I misunderstood? 
Gah, confusion!

It looks like ttx suggested 0.9.1 because he thought diablo keystone had
been versioned as 0.9. But actually, setup.py had 1.0, the
keystone.version() method returns 0.9 and git was tagged with 2011.3.

I used 2011.3 as the version in Fedora after raising the issue of
versioning upstream:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg04946.html

I've just suggested upstream use 2011.3.1 as the versioning scheme for
stable branch releases.

Cheers,
Mark.