| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-08-29 | |||
| 16:20:34 | elmiko | efried: i would be happy with a "help wanted" plus changing the todo language to something more honest | |
| 16:21:05 | elmiko | well, more reflective of our actual intentions | |
| 16:21:23 | dtantsur | and maybe some rough ideas on what a guidelines could look like | |
| 16:21:29 | efried | I didn't want to get into this on the ML, but I don't like the idea that "if nobody is asking it must not be important". | |
| 16:21:31 | stephenfin | efried: | |
| 16:21:33 | stephenfin | .. admonition:: Help wanted | |
| 16:21:34 | stephenfin | ||
| 16:21:34 | dtantsur | "We don't know for sure, but something in spirit of RFC XYZ" | |
| 16:21:38 | dtantsur | yeah | |
| 16:21:38 | stephenfin | Stuff. | |
| 16:21:46 | stephenfin | QED | |
| 16:21:54 | elmiko | efried: ++, that's a good thought to capture | |
| 16:21:57 | efried | stephenfin: cool, I had a feeling there might be something existing that would work. | |
| 16:22:10 | elmiko | they _are_ important, but we have failed as a sig to arrive at any guidance on those topics | |
| 16:22:12 | dtantsur | tripleo-docs uses admonitions quite actively, we can check how they do it | |
| 16:22:23 | elmiko | dtantsur: ++ | |
| 16:22:24 | efried | All too often people just give up because it's too hard or time consuming or soul-sucking to continue complaining about stuff that's been TODO f'rever. | |
| 16:22:51 | dtantsur | if we had one person per each big project.. cough-cough | |
| 16:23:10 | dtantsur | :D | |
| 16:23:16 | elmiko | haha | |
| 16:23:20 | efried | It's just that we're all stretched so thin | |
| 16:23:24 | dtantsur | indeed | |
| 16:23:26 | elmiko | yyup | |
| 16:23:36 | efried | unfortunately docs always end up being a thing that suffers, falls off the bottom. | |
| 16:23:48 | dtantsur | yep. and dev docs is the least liked kind of docs | |
| 16:23:54 | elmiko | i feel like even migrating from TODO to "we could use help here but have no guidance currently" is at least more reflective of where we are at | |
| 16:24:04 | edleafe | So like elmiko said, let's be transparent about that | |
| 16:24:08 | dtantsur | very much agreed | |
| 16:24:17 | gtema_ | ++ | |
| 16:24:34 | efried | so anyway, the path of least resistance but biggest effect IMO is to keep the TODOs (with help-wanted admonition makeover if desired) and keep them in front of people's faces (i.e. keep them in the docs). | |
| 16:24:41 | elmiko | cool, i have _some_ time (he said sheepishly), i'll take the lead on geting something moving | |
| 16:25:08 | elmiko | efried: ack, we won't take them out but i would really like to make them more explicit | |
| 16:25:08 | dtantsur | elmiko++ | |
| 16:25:10 | efried | we are all in violent agreement | |
| 16:25:27 | elmiko | we can argue about the details on review ;) | |
| 16:25:40 | dtantsur | oh we can :) | |
| 16:25:41 | efried | also, consider merging the massive-doc-patches as is and refacing the TODOs in subsequent patches. | |
| 16:25:43 | elmiko | haha | |
| 16:26:09 | dtantsur | efried: also true. especially with the version discovery monster. | |
| 16:26:11 | gtema_ | oj, the nitpicker of dtantsur is a killer bomb ;-) | |
| 16:26:12 | efried | because there's a mental barrier to re-reviewing a 1KLOC patch. | |
| 16:26:17 | elmiko | efried: yes, i will make notes about this when i triage next week. if those patches are in good enough shape to merge i will weigh that heavily in my comments. | |
| 16:26:19 | efried | regardless of how small the inter-patch delta is. | |
| 16:26:35 | elmiko | efried: ++ | |
| 16:27:29 | efried | especially with docs, as long as the patch moves the ball forward and doesn't introduce actual inaccuracies, we should be able to be much less perfectionist about merging | |
| 16:27:46 | efried | it's not like we're going to introduce a security regression or something. | |
| 16:27:51 | elmiko | yeah | |
| 16:27:53 | efried | break CERN's deployment. | |
| 16:28:03 | elmiko | i think we've just been really nitpicky about getting the details correct | |
| 16:28:13 | elmiko | and that version discovery beast is tough to wrangle | |
| 16:28:18 | efried | no joke | |
| 16:28:45 | elmiko | especially when we stay true to our processes and ask for input from the community | |
| 16:29:48 | elmiko | efried: so that's a question i have though. we have clear guides about how we will merge changes, i don't think it's a good idea to break them /but/ we do open ourselves up to drive by -1's when we do this and that throws the whole process off. any suggestions? | |
| 16:30:39 | efried | clear guides written for different times; we should have the temerity to alter those processes. | |
| 16:30:48 | elmiko | fair | |
| 16:31:10 | dtantsur | ++ | |
| 16:31:34 | efried | A number of teams are, out of necessity, moving to single-core approvals. Not saying thats' a good idea here necessarily, just that it's a thing. | |
| 16:31:36 | elmiko | appreciate all the feedback, it is helpful | |
| 16:31:37 | dtantsur | and the version discovery one doesn't have -1's | |
| 16:31:48 | elmiko | dtantsur: ++ | |
| 16:31:50 | dtantsur | so strictly speaking we can approve it | |
| 16:31:59 | elmiko | cool, maybe we just do that | |
| 16:32:16 | elmiko | give it one more read through to make sure there are not glaring errors | |
| 16:32:25 | efried | Yeah, for something like this, if it's clear it's been thoroughly reviewed by people with at least some understanding of the content, it's reasonable to proxy their +1 as a +2 when there's a dearth of cores available. | |
| 16:32:27 | efried | IMHO | |
| 16:32:35 | elmiko | ++ | |
| 16:32:47 | efried | IIRC I went through one or more of those enormous patches and +1ed. | |
| 16:32:55 | efried | I consider myself at least somewhat up on version discovery. | |
| 16:33:19 | efried | and changes since my +1 have been minimal, so feel free to carry those forward. | |
| 16:33:27 | elmiko | ack, thanks | |
| 16:33:56 | elmiko | is it time for cake and punch? | |
| 16:34:01 | gtema_ | I was missing in the version discovery rules on what is open and what requires AUTH. This got lost in some restructuring | |
| 16:34:28 | elmiko | gtema_: definitely add comments if you can figure out where it was | |
| 16:34:35 | gtema_ | did it already | |
| 16:34:40 | gtema_ | long time ago | |
| 16:34:55 | gtema_ | but that is the point - there are way to many to see the overview | |
| 16:34:58 | elmiko | ok, cool. i will inevitably come across them ;) | |
| 16:35:14 | elmiko | yeah, i'm gonna carve out like half a day for going reviewing these | |
| 16:35:28 | dtantsur | I've seen gtema_'s comments, just never got to fixing them | |
| 16:35:36 | elmiko | ok, maybe i can help | |
| 16:35:41 | dtantsur | and again, I'd prefer to fix in a follow-up | |
| 16:35:49 | elmiko | ++ | |
| 16:36:02 | elmiko | if there are easy fixes though, i will try to just add them | |
| 16:36:15 | gtema_ | cool | |
| 16:42:43 | gtema_ | dtantsur: what do you think about https://opendev.org/openstack/openstacksdk/src/branch/master/openstack/resource.py#L1331 | |
| 16:42:56 | gtema_ | can we change it to "Accept: *"? | |
| 16:43:35 | gtema_ | empty value is somehow not RFC-nice | |
| 16:46:13 | dtantsur | gtema_: I wonder why we send *anything* if we don't expect a body | |
| 16:46:22 | dtantsur | HEAD + Accept doesn't make sense to me | |
| 16:46:30 | gtema_ | well, some APIs might return a body | |
| 16:46:37 | dtantsur | to HEAD?? Oo | |
| 16:47:16 | gtema_ | or, no | |
| 16:47:22 | gtema_ | looked to the wrong section | |
| 16:47:53 | gtema_ | I would suggest either remove it completely, or set a "*" | |
| 16:47:57 | gtema_ | not an empty value | |
| 16:48:13 | edleafe | A HEAD with a body is, well, a whole person | |
| 16:48:30 | gtema_ | yupp | |
| 16:48:40 | elmiko | lol | |
| 16:49:06 | dtantsur | :D | |
| 16:49:10 | dtantsur | I'd remove it | |