[PKG-Openstack-devel] Please don't remove gbp.conf from openstack packaging repos

[Corey Bryant]

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> wrote:

> On 11/06/2017 07:10 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6 November 2017 06:23:12 GMT+11:00, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate contribution, and it's great if you
> >> want to contribute. But indeed, to me, insisting about gbp.conf,
> >> pristine-tar, *AND* this timing, it only feels like it's helping
> >> Ubuntu,
> >> not Debian. Hoping this may change in the (near) future: maybe
> >> Canonical's team will confirm they want to release Queens with us?
> >
> > Thomas, this attitude is seriously unhelpful. Ubuntu has offered that
> you could use their work, multiple times, even before you started packaging
> OpenStack. You decided to do it in your own weirdly unmaintainable way,
> that no one wants to touch. Stop pretending that Ubuntu contributors are
> the problem. *You* are the problem.
> >
> > Allison
>
> Allison,
>
> What I'm going to write below are only statements. It's pure facts, so
> there's nothing to take personally.
>
> During the OpenStack sprint in Montreal, we took a number of decisions,
> which influenced the way I did the packaging. Here's a few of them,
> related to the discussion. Each decision had thoughts behind, and they
> were not taken lightly.
>
> * We decided that we would continue to use a git tag workflow, because
> it helps packaging faster, removes the artifacts which we don't want in
> the packaging (egg-info, upstream changelog, AUTHORS file), and is very
> helpful to cherry-pick patches or package a specific git tag.
>
> It was mentioned that pristine-tar is broken anyway, not producing
> always the same tarball. The recent REJECTED upload of Alembic, for
> which I forwarded dak's message to the list, is yet another example of
> that brokenness. The creator of pristine-tar and its current maintainers
> also agree: pristine-tar is broken by design, and its biggest benefit
> (ie: skipping the boring task of downloading existing orig tarball from
> the Debian archive before building) sometimes fail. So pristine-tar,
> unfortunately, doesn't bring any improvement to the build workflow.
>
> * To improve the workflow, and also reduce the workload, we decided to
> completely remove the debian/gbp.conf file. This file is not needed,
> because the gbp.conf file is only mandatory when using pristine-tar. By
> default, pristine-tar is set to false by default. Reducing the amount of
> work on such a large set of packages really is hepful, and removing
> gbp.conf goes that direction. Also, not everyone uses gbp (Daniel,
> for example, prefers to use sbuild directly).
>
> The proposed gbp.conf from Canonical, even if we wanted to add it,
> wouldn't work for us because:
> - It sets using master branch and we use debian/pike (explained above)
> - It sets pristine-tar = true, but we don't use pristine-tar
>
> In both cases, it would break us. Everything else can be set either in
> /etc in gbp.conf, or in ~/.gbp.conf in a global way, once and for all.
>
> Note that I was against removing the gbp.conf file, as I thought it was
> best to not force someone to configure git-buildpackage locally.
> Considering I was the only one having this opinion, I accepted, and over
> time, I came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do.
>
> * During Debconf, we discussed where to upload Pike, and we decided that
> we would do it in Experimental. Here again, I didn't agree, and wanted
> to upload to Unstable. One of the reason was that it would help
> Canonical, as sync from Unstable is automatic. I was given the counter
> argument that Canonical could manually import from Experimental. Now we
> see the consequences: I'm being told what's happening is my fault
> because the packages arrive late in sid...
>
> As a conclusion, the only thing I've been doing here is defending the
> decision *of the team* (not my "own weirdly unmaintainable way" as you
> stated harshly). Decisions which we made collectively during the Debcamp
> sprint in Montreal, and for most of which I didn't agree to begin with.
>
> Another fact: I uploaded 318 times since August (I checked how many
> ftp-master.upload files are on my filesystem for my Pike folder). The
> 2nd contributor would be Ondrej, with maybe a few dozen uploads (I
> didn't count). The only upload you did was git-review, taking the
> package away from the team. Are you planning to contribute more ?
>
> That's all for the facts. Now a bit more thinking about collaboration
> with Canonical on the OpenStack packaging.
>
> You may have noticed: I'm being frustrated because there's *not
> enough* contribution from Canonical, not the opposite way. Here, the
> only thing I've seen from Canonical for this Pike release is 5 diffs, 3
> of them only pushing gbp.conf and watch file, or retaining
> Breaks+Replaces which are nowadays useless even for Ubuntu. The only
> very good one is the one for oslo.concurrency (thanks a lot for that
> one!). That's a bit light, don't you think? It's even more a surprise to
> see Corey asking for an EPOCH bump in oslo.context, affecting 27
> (build-)dependency, when he has direct write access to the Git, when
> that EPOCH was bumped last January in Ubuntu, and after we've uploaded
> all of Pike already (said with other words: a quite wrong timing). I'm
> truly sorry for this makes me a little bit grumpy, though I believe it's
> easy to understand why.


> So I'm saying it again: I'm very much welcoming a reboot of the
> collaboration with Canonical the way it was done in Mitaka, when Corey
> and others were simply pushing to the Git on Alioth. James Page also
> told me face to face he felt happy of both the workflow and the result.
> I don't see why it couldn't happen again. Of course, the decision to do
> it isn't on me though...
>
> Altogether, I don't think it's fair to say that *I* am the problem. I
> found your wording not only uncomfortable, but above all, simply wrong.
> Hopefully you understand why now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>


Hi Thomas,

It's always great to hear from you.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't continue to throw me and my employer under
the bus.

We've gone above and beyond to collaborate with you. Prior to this past
year we aligned with Debian as much as possible on OpenStack dependencies.
I spent a significant amount of time a few cycles back dropping any delta
from Ubuntu dependencies to align with Debian and we were contributing
directly to alioth. Then you decided to move all of the Debian OpenStack
packages out of alioth and work on packages in gerrit. I found the workflow
to be far too slow, and it just didn't make sense for us, so we went back
to contributing directly to Ubuntu. Unfortunately we have different
strategies with our packages which makes collaboration difficult.
pristine-tar has worked out well for us. Debian development is done in
experimental and makes sync/merge process difficult for us (we finished
pike 2 months ago). We don't prompt users with debconf.

I'm not sure what else to say. I may not reply to your next reply because I
can't spend too many cycles on this. It's the same thing over and over and
I need to focus on my work.

Thanks,
Corey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/openstack-devel/attachments/20171106/f9916f99/attachment-0001.html>