On 10/11/2015 06:09 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:40:15AM -0400, Shyam wrote:
On 10/09/2015 12:07 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
First of all my apologies for not going through the meeting blog before
sending my thoughts on how we plan to maintain GlusterD 2.0 [1].
This approach seems fine to me as long as we don't touch any existing
xlators. How do we handle cases where other xlators get impacted by
certain changes. Are we going to copy the whole translator in
xlators/experimental and start working on it?
Nope, we should send a change request for that xlator as a separate commit
when possible.
The counter example to this is, point (4) below (where DHT2 needs a bit of
change in glusterd, but ...).
I suggest such changes be maintained as .patch files inside the xlator, till
a point when this can be merged is decided.
No, please not, this makes it practically impossible to track the
history of the changes. See this other email that suggests using
different functions based on a #define:
http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2015-October/046889.html
This is clean, does not need nasty hacks in the build system and keeps
the history. Also, when someone changes one variation of the function,
the other variation would get corrected at the same time (or the
reviewers point that missing bit out).
The #if/else approach works for me, the only problem is that we should
not pollute the supported code too much, that it becomes difficult to
maintain, or newer functionality causes unstable behaviour.
Instead of all this wouldn't it be simpler to have development under a
separate branch say "4.0-unstable" and we could disable CI on this
branch till it becomes stable? Are we worried about pulling in the
changes from this to master once the branch becomes stable?
I guess the worry is *bulk* changes appearing in master (as per meeting
minutes). I share the same concern as well (on bulk changes), but I am
unsure of review stringency on experimental, as things will evolve here,
than each commit be ready for a clean review from day 1. So, this is an open
confusion in my head as well, as when we want to move an xlator from
experimental to suported, what would be the criteria? Would we not be doing
bulk reviews then as well?
Changes for a new feature should also be done in steps that can
reasonably be reviewed, so, smaller patches addressing a particular
functionality. Developers that are interested in the feature, should
have a good review process. The standards that we apply for
non-experimental changes are strict, but is there really a good reason
to not apply those guidelines for patches to expiremental xlators too?
There are 2 sub-problems here, and I think I answered on of them in
another mail, which is *bulk* changes. The short of it being, yes there
would be incremental changes to the experimental code base, but *when*
it has to move out of experimental, that move may need a bulk review, we
cannot get away from this in any scheme, and with code in master, there
is a good chance that, as the xlator matures more eyes are called in to
review the changes, so the bulk point is rather not as bulky and should
become moot. IOW, *bulk* is no longer a concern (at least for me with
the master branch+experimental approach).
The second issue I see here is the quality of each submission and the
review process around it etc. I would answer it this way, code that
compiles may not work or could have issues during integration, or things
under experimental would change course during its lifetime. As a result,
some experimental changes would be allowed, and hence move forward the
development or thought process, to a point where we are in functioning
order at some time. Having a very stringent review and working order
code in experimental, could hamper development pace.
I guess each experimental xlator should have a TODO list in its sources.
If a reviewer notices some issue, it may be acceptible to add the
problem to the TODO list (with a pointer to the review URL where it was
spotted). This allows fast progress, and we have some criteria that gets
collected with which we can decide if the xlator may move out of
experimental. It also makes it possible for others to update the TODO
list when reviews of the already merged code is done.
This is better, I was using TODO in code for the same, a list of issues
is better to track, close, check etc.
I will add this to the criteria in the commit for the same.
Niels
What do others think?
This is just my thought and I would like to get a clarity on this.
Thanks,
Atin
[1] http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2015-October/046872.html
On 10/08/2015 11:35 PM, Shyam wrote:
Hi,
On checking yesterday's gluster meeting AIs and (later) reading the
minutes, for DHT2 here is what I gather and propose to do for $SUBJECT.
Feel free to add/negate any plans.
(This can also be discussed at [2])
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Create a directory under the glusterfs master branch as follows,
./xlators/*experimental*/dht2
./xlators/*experimental*/posix2
See patch request at [2]
All code, design documents (work products in general) would go into this
directory.
2) Code that compiles and does not cause CI failures could *potentially*
be merged with very few DHT2 dev folks assent.
There would possibly be no CI integration till we get something working,
so merges would be based on compile passing initially. Soon there would
be an attempt at getting unit testing integrated, so that code being
submitted is not abysmally horrendous
3) Common framework code changes (if any) would be presented as a
separate commit request
4) (Big problem) DHT2 requires glusterd changes to create a volume as
DHT2 and not DHT, this would be maintained as a .patch in the dht2
directory as above. This is so that people can play with DHT2 volumes if
interested. Integration of this piece either comes with glusterd 2.0 or
based on time lines of other events, in the current version of glusterd.
(if you are interested in seeing the current version of this patch, go
here [1])
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is some key disagreement on certain points like (2) above, then
we would need to bring in DHT2 code in parts so that it makes sense.
This is fine too, just that we would have 2 repos till we reach a point
of maturity in development.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Some issues with the approach:*
A) We need to ensure we do not ship xlators compiled from the
experimental directory
B) We need to possibly add a buddy maintainer for experimental
translator owners, who can help with the process of merging their changes.
C) I am not sure how this helps the review process, as initially xlator
development can be iffy and so we do not expect reviews to be stringent.
Later when we want to move this out of the experimental category, how do
we review the same now, and what actions do we take to ensure quality?
Won't we have the same bulk code review issue?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shameless plug: For quality and if an xlator plays well with other parts
of gluster the distaf framework of testing against possible graphs and
access protocols can be of immense help.
Shyam
[1]
https://github.com/ShyamsundarR/glusterfs/commit/663eeb98f6a51384c8745b8882e7c6c4f7b58a7c
[2] http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12321/1
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
