[Engine-devel] [SUGGESTION] Defining a process for the new feature discussion/implementation.

Michael Pasternak mpastern at redhat.com
Sun Dec 23 10:01:25 UTC 2012 

On 12/23/2012 11:39 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Pasternak" <mpastern at redhat.com>
>> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
>> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>, arch at ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 11:28:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [SUGGESTION] Defining a process for the new feature discussion/implementation.
>>
>> On 12/23/2012 11:07 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Michael Pasternak" <mpastern at redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>, arch at ovirt.org,
>>>> "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 8:25:23 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [SUGGESTION] Defining a process for
>>>> the new feature discussion/implementation.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/21/2012 01:57 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Michael Pasternak" <mpastern at redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>, "engine-devel"
>>>>>> <engine-devel at ovirt.org>, arch at ovirt.org
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:44:51 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [SUGGESTION] Defining a process for
>>>>>> the new feature discussion/implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/21/2012 12:15 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/21/2012 12:12 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> To: "Michael Pasternak" <mpastern at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:42:37 PM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [SUGGESTION] Defining a process
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the new feature discussion/implementation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2012 03:08 PM, Michael Pasternak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In many cases OSS maintainers not always can be in the loop
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> different threads what may
>>>>>>>>>> cause them missing important decisions being taken,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As result later on during reviews of the patches they're not
>>>>>>>>>> accepting (already implemented)
>>>>>>>>>> features, what is causing not once for feature to be
>>>>>>>>>> re-designed
>>>>>>>>>> and/or delayed, what is wrong
>>>>>>>>>> from the development cycle PoV.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore I'd like to suggest establishing dev-rules for the
>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>> feature implementation,
>>>>>>>>>> what will make entire process much more easer for all of us:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. discuss new feature on the mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> (requirements/constraints/etc.)
>>>>>>>>>> 2. summarise feature details in feature-doc
>>>>>>>>>> 3. send feature-doc to review to:
>>>>>>>>>>      3.1 ML (engine-devel)
>>>>>>>>>>      3.2 MG (mailing group of maintainers of the relevant
>>>>>>>>>>      layers)
>>>>>>>>>> 4. after feature-doc is accepted,
>>>>>>>>>>      4.1 implement the feature
>>>>>>>>>>      4.2 send it to gerrit for review to:
>>>>>>>>>>          4.2.1 lead maintainer/s (they will review/delegate
>>>>>>>>>>          it)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NOTE 3.2, 4.2.1 will require defining MGs such as:
>>>>>>>>>>         - engine-devel-core
>>>>>>>>>>         - engine-devel-ui
>>>>>>>>>>         - engine-devel-api
>>>>>>>>>>         - engine-devel-sdk
>>>>>>>>>>         - engine-devel-cli
>>>>>>>>>>         - engine-devel-vdsm ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i thought this is what we have the arch mailing list for,
>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> feature is going to cut through multiple layers/components,
>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are very specific, they should be sent to arch, and all
>>>>>>>>> maintainers
>>>>>>>>> should follow arch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is missing is upstream bugzilla.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A feature, after initiate stage should be represented with a
>>>>>>>> bug.
>>>>>>>> The bug should be assigned to the right designated milestone.
>>>>>>>> All document references (including versions) should be
>>>>>>>> attached
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> referred by the bug.
>>>>>>>> Dependency between features can be established using bug
>>>>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>>>>> Status can be acquired from buzilla at any time, progress
>>>>>>>> reports
>>>>>>>> should be input into bugzilla.
>>>>>>>> Contact details for the feature can be acquired too, relevant
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> interested parties can be CCed explicitly.
>>>>>>>> I guess I can add more benefits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mailing list is good for idea initiation, but not for
>>>>>>>> lifecycle
>>>>>>>> management, nor for people to join at implementation phase and
>>>>>>>> understand why, how and when.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having upstream bugzilla will also help us plan ahead, and
>>>>>>>> manage
>>>>>>>> the break the project into smaller components, to assign core
>>>>>>>> developers for each.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it still won't help tracking all relevant maintainers from rest
>>>>>>> api, ui, engine, vdsm saw the bug. we have multiple components.
>>>>>>> arch is mostly to cover cross component issues, such as
>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is why i'm suggesting creating mailing-groups peer
>>>>>> component,
>>>>>> feature owner knows what layers are involved and should be
>>>>>> responsible to CC
>>>>>> relevant MGs in both BZ & thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> mailing group is something nobody can manage.
>>>>
>>>> why?, we do not have many layers in the system, creating:
>>>> "engine{core, db, network, storage/gluster}, api, ui, sdk, cli,
>>>> vdsm,
>>>> node"
>>>> mailing groups will do the trick.
>>>
>>> Because in open source you don't know who is actually out there.
>>
>> this is not about of including everyone in mailing-group, but
>> maintainers,
>> and you always know who maintainers are.
> 
> I am sorry, but this is not "open" discussion.
> You *DO NOT* know who is interested, there can be other people that are highly valuable for a discussion and you are going to loose them.

how possible you will loose them? adding mailing-group/s of maintainers does *not* mean
excluding the mailing list itself ...

anyone that is interested in discussion can still follow it.

> 
> Maintainer is not someone who is more important the contributer, he just has commit access.

i do agree about maintainers not being "more important" than contributor, but for sure maintainers have more
experience with the projects and planned stuff, so they can drive features to the right direction ...

> 
>>
>>> This is very different from proprietary.
>>> Also, features can be cross component / cross products / cross
>>> projects.
>>
>> the one who implementing the feature knows what layers he is
>> touching,
>> and can trigger relevant mailing-groups (this way feature owner does
>> not
>> have to be aware of actual layer/s maintainers)
> 
> Again, you lose one of the most important open source benefit, allowing everyone to participate and contribute.
> 
> If you like, a message subject convention will be more productive, "maintainer" may set trigger for a specific prefix, and there can be a documentation of this convention for features and other uses.
> 
> All discussions should be made in public, this is burden but also opportunity.

Alon,

i think you missed the point, read my answer ^ above, + entire thread was started,
to make sure maintainers explicitly got involved in to design of the features and
not changing it when the code is written (what for sure will make contributors frustrated)

> 
>>>
>>> You can have default CC in bugzilla for the people you do know, but
>>> you must enable other people to subscribe.
>>
>> i'm not talking about bagzila, but the standard process of
>> introducing new
>> feature, - e.g discussion cannot take place in the bugzila (it's a
>> tool to summarise the feature, etc.),
>> but i'd like to male sure all relevant maintainers get involved in
>> feature design/discussion
>> before it get written and not only when they have to review the code,
>> and mailing-groups is a
>> right tool for that in my view.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> you can consider a group as all people who are CC to a bug.
>>>>
>>>> CC'ing people manually can't guarantee that all relevant people
>>>> will
>>>> be included in the email (thread).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (or we could create a feature mailing list).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ML/MG peer feature is too much i think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but i do agree we could use bugzilla for tracking features per
>>>>>>> version, if wiki isn't tracking this correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Pasternak
>>>>>> RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Michael Pasternak
>>>> RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Michael Pasternak
>> RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D
>>


-- 

Michael Pasternak
RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D

More information about the Arch mailing list