[Openstack-devel] Moving all git repositories to git.gplhost.com

Thu Nov 21 13:47:57 UTC 2013

On 21/11/13 at 10:51 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> BTW, as much as I have seen, this is left to the discretion of a package
> maintainer. And since I'm the only one doing the work right now, I
> believe I could be entitled to do such a decision. However, if I'm
> discussing in this list, it really is because I don't want to be the
> only one taking the decision, and I want others to be involved.

Well, in your initial mail, I fail to see where you were asking for
feedback about a proposal. Instead, you wrote:
| I'm in the process of fixing all VCS fields for all packages, though of
| course, fixes will only happen at the next upload of all packages.

... which seems to indicate that you already had taken the decision.

> > Throwing suggestions, "views" and FUD at Alioth admins and DSA during a
> > crisis, and then complaining that you are not being heard, is totally
> > useless and counterproductive.
> 
> Right, I shouldn't have write that part. I agree it's "useless and
> counterproductive". However, I have stated facts and problems which I
> faced using Alioth. This isn't FUD. My point was *not* to point fingers
> at the Alioth admins, but to find a solution for the packaging of
> OpenStack so that we have a friendly environment that matches the needs
> of the team (which currently involves me only). Please also consider
> that I've been an Alioth user for years, and that I have reached its
> limit. Cloning 150 MB of data 4 times on each push shows its limit...
> 
> > Alioth is a key part of Debian's
> > infrastructure, and I agree that we should address the underlying
> > problems so that the same chain of events doesn't ever happen again.
> 
> Again, this isn't only because of the down time. I have stated already
> some problems which I faced, and there's no sign that this will be
> improved (like the fail2ban, slowness, and such).

Please be reassured: I intend to initiate a discussion with DSA and the
alioth admins about the status of Alioth.

> If you now tell me
> that there's going to be improvements, then great! I probably can use it
> again later on. If we move to openstack-infra as I hope, then probably
> we will publish the source copy on Alioth rather than on Github. That'd
> be perfect.
> 
> > But your should be supportive and cooperative, not throw shit at some
> > Debian contributors and force other to go throw loops to contribute to
> > the Openstack packages
> 
> I don't see how there would be more loops.

Well, not using the infrastructure that we strongly recommended to use
for packaging work is a way to add more loops.

> If anyone who has contributed
> in the past to the OpenStack packages want a root account on my Git
>
> server, I would happily provide it. However, and that's the same for the
> admin account on Alioth, this type of rights cannot be granted to anyone
> which we never heard of.
> 
> > (which are not *your* packages, btw).
> 
> Take a big care with this kind of sentence. I've been alone doing the
> work, and there's currently no sign that this will change. So yes, I
> believe that I have the full rights to choose which type of environment
> I work with.

You are the current (main) maintainer of the OpenStack packages in
Debian. Even if you were the sole maintainer, that would not make them
*your* packages. You are in a wrong state of mind here. The OpenStack
Debian packages are Debian's, and you are a contributor to those
packages packages (and to Debian). Of course, everybody should be
grateful to you for your contribution. But that doesn't make them *your*
packages.

Similarly, I'm the current Debian Project Leader, but that doesn't make
Debian *my* project. :)

You complain about not finding active co-maintainers. I agree that this
is a problem. OpenStack are very important packages to Debian, and I'm
fully aware of that (note how I singled out packaging of Cloud stacks in
the "challenges for Debian" part of my "bits from the DPL" talk at
DC13).

But I'd recommended that:
- you make sure that the OpenStack feels as much like a team as
  possible. It might require you to step down a bit and stay behind
  the curtains, to give some space for possible newcomers.
  Even if you feel that lurkers don't necessarily have a word to say
  about some decisions, involving them in the discussions could
  make them feel more part of the team, which is a good way to get
  them to contribute.
- you make it as easy as possible for people to contribute, and follow
  recommended practices for teams. For example, I see that the OpenStack
  team doesn't have a wiki page on https://wiki.debian.org/Teams.
  It could be helpful to create such a page, and identify tasks that are
  suitable for new contributors (answer the "if I wanted to help, where
  could I start?" question).

(FTR, I've met a quite a few people interested in contributing to
OpenStack packaging, and I'm surprised that some of them at least
haven't turned into contributors. For me, it indicates that there's a
margin for improvement in the way the team is managed)

> > Also, I would like to use this opportunity to ask you to clarify your
> > situation regarding the OpenStack packages. I've heard that you were
> > paid to work on the OpenStack Debian packages.
> > - Could you clarify how that affects your work on those packages?
> > - How do you protect Debian from being manipulated, through you, by
> >   the company that pays you?
> > - Given the context, did you consider defining a more formal
> >   decision-making process together with the other co-maintainers, for
> >   important packaging decisions?
> 
> Now *this* is FUD... Instead of writing the above, I would strongly
> suggest you to reply to my private email, asking you to do take measures
> so that what happened with Alioth doesn't happen again, especially the
> part where there was no communication during the crisis from the Alioth
> admins.
> 
> Anyway, let me reply to this point by point to the above.
> 
> > - Could you clarify how that affects your work on those packages?
> 
> eNovance has been of great help, providing CI testings using the tempest
> functional test suite. Also, since they use my packages in production,
> they provide a very good feedback and Q/A.

How does that feedback get to you? Asking them to use the Debian BTS
could be a bit too much, but on the other hand, if you opened some bugs
yourself in the Debian BTS, it could provide contribution ideas for
prospective contributors.

> > - How do you protect Debian from being manipulated, through you, by
> >   the company that pays you?
> 
> Exactly what kind of manipulation are you talking about? Please clarify.
> eNovance has been helping, and we should be greatfull that a company
> sponsor some Debian works. This is rare enough so that it should be
> underlined. They haven't manipulate me or the packaging in any way.

I agree that we should be grateful to companies supporting Debian.
However, we should still be careful that our employers don't end up
having an influence about the way Debian is developed (in terms of
roadmaps, technical choices, etc.).

Also note that the fact that you are paid by eNovance to work on Debian
packages is likely to affect negatively the participation of new
contributors, especially if your work with eNovance influences the way
the packages are managed (due to the "why should I work for eNovance for
free?" feeling).

> > - Given the context, did you consider defining a more formal
> >   decision-making process together with the other co-maintainers, for
> >   important packaging decisions?
> 
> Which co-maintainers are you talking about exactly? I'd be very happy if
> there was some, though that's unfortunately not the case. As I wrote,
> only Gustavo helped a little bit for Heat (the client and the cfn-tools,
> probably something else that I forgot?). Also, which type of decision do
> you think there would be? There hasn't been much of these...
> 
> Anyway, if we move to something like OpenStack infra, *and* there's
> enough contributors willing to do patch reviews, then we'll be using
> Gerrit, and then of course, there will be a very healthy
> "decision-making process". However, if I continue to be the only one
> working on the packaging, it will not help if nobody else is involved.
> 
> On 11/21/2013 06:02 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Additional note: I've seen that the idea of moving the packaging repo
> > to openstack.org was mentioned.
> >
> > I don't have the same concerns with that idea as with moving the git
> > repositories to the employer of one of the maintainers.
> 
> Oh gosh... Now, there's a huge confusion here. GPLHost is *my* company,
> and to some degrees (there's some share holders of GPLHost who hold a
> minority of the shares), all of the GPLHost servers can be considered
> mine. So, no, git.gplhost.com is *not* a server of my "employer". By the
> way, eNovance is *not* my employer, they do only sponsor my packaging
> work, and for the moment, I am still independent.
> 
> So I do have total freedom here.

I'm glad to hear that.

Lucas