The content below is taken from the original (OpenStack Developer Mailing List Digest November 21-27), to continue reading please visit the site. Remember to respect the Author & Copyright.

Success Bot Says

• vkmc: We got 7 new interns for the Outreachy program December-March 2015 round.
• bauzas: Reno in place for Nova release notes.
• AJaeger: We now have Japanese Install Guides published for Liberty [1].
• robcresswell: Horizon had a bug day! We made good progress on categorizing new bugs and removing old ones, with many members of the community stepping up to help.
• AJaeger: The OpenStack Architecture Design Guide has been converted to RST [2].
• AJaeger: The Virtual Machine Image guide has been converted to RST [3].
• Ajaeger: Japanese Networking Guide is published as draft [4].
• Tell us yours via IRC with a message “#success [insert success]”.

Release countdown for week R-18, Nov 30 – Dec 4

• All projects following the cycle-with-milestones release model should be preparing for the milestone tag.
• Release Actions:
  • All deliverables must have Reno configured before adding a Mitaka-1 milestone tag.
  • Use openstack/releases repository to manage the Mitaka-1 milestone tags.
  • One time change, we will be simplifying how we specify the versions for projects by moving to only using tags instead of the version entry for setup.cfg.
• Stable release actions: Review stable/liberty branches for patches that have landed since the last release and determine if your deliverables need new tags.
• Important dates:
  • Deadline for requesting a Mitaka-1 milestone tag: December 3rd
  • Mitaka-2: Jan 19-21
  • Mitaka release schedule [5]

Common OpenStack ‘Third-Party’ CI Solution – DONE!

• Ramy Asselin who has been spearheading the work for a common third-party CI solution announces things being done!
  • This solution uses the same tools and scripts as the upstream Jenkins CI solution.
  • The documentation for setting up a 3rd party ci system on 2 VMs (1 private that runs the CI jobs, and 1 public that hosts the log files) is now available here [6] or [7].
  • There a number of companies today using this solution for their third party CI needs.

Process Change For Closing Bugs When Patches Merge

• Today when a patch merges with ‘Closes-Bug’ in the commit message, that marks the associated bug as ‘Fix Committed’ to indicated fixed, but not in the release yet.
• The release team uses automated tools to mark bugs from ‘Fix Committed’ to ‘Fix Released’, but they’re not reliable due to Launchpad issues.
• Proposal for automated tools to improve reliability: Patches with ‘Closes-Bug’ in the commit message to have the bug status mark the associated bug as ‘Fix Released’ instead of ‘Fix Committed’.
• Doug would like to have this be in effect next week.

Move From Active Distrusting Model to Trusting Model

• Morgan Fainberg writes most projects have a distrusting policy that prevents the following scenario:
  • Employee from Company A writes code
  • Other Employee from Company A reviews code
  • Third Employee from Company A reviews and approves code.
• Proposal for a trusting model:
  • Code reviews still need 2x Core Reviewers (no change)
  • Code can be developed by a member of the same company as both core reviewers (and approvers).
  • If the trust that is being given via this new policy is violated, the code can [if needed], be reverted (we are using git here) and the actors in question can lose core status (PTL discretion) and the policy can be changed back to the “distrustful” model described above.
• Dolph Mathews provides scenarios where the “distrusting” model either did or would have helped:
  • Employee is reprimanded by management for not positively reviewing & approving a coworkers patch.
  • A team of employees is pressured to land a feature with as fast as possible. Minimal community involvement means a faster path to “merged,” right?
  • A large group of reviewers from the author’s organization repeatedly throwing *many* careless +1s at a single patch. (These happened to not be cores, but it’s a related organizational behavior taken to an extreme.)

Stable Team PTL Nominations Are Open

• As discussed [8][9] of setting up a standalone stable maintenance team, we’ll be organizing PTL elections over the coming weeks.
• Stable team’s mission:
  • Define and enforce the common stable branch policy
  • Educate and accompany projects as they use stable branches
  • Keep CI working on stable branches
  • Mentoring/growing the stable maintenance team
  • Create and improve stable tooling/automation
• Anyone who successfully contributed to a stable branch back port over the last year can vote in the stable PTL election.
• If interested, reply to thread with your self-nomination.
• Deadline is 23:59 UTC Monday, November 30.
• Election will be the week after.
• Current candidates:
  • Matt Riedmann [10]
  • Erno Kuvaja [11]

Using Reno For Libraries

• Libraries have two audiences for release notes:
  • Developers consuming the library.
  • Deployers pushing out new versions of the libraries.
• To separate the notes from the two audiences and avoid doing manually something that we have been doing automatically, we can use Reno for just deployer release notes.
• Library repositories that need Reno should have it configured like service projects, with separate jobs and a publishing location different from their developer documentation [12]

Releases VS Development Cycle

• Thierry writes that as more projects enter the Big Tent, there have recently been questions about release models and development cycle.
• Some projects want to be independent of the common release cycle and dates, but still keep some adherence to the development cycle. Examples:
  • Gnocchi wants to be completely independent of the common development cycle, but still maintain stable branches.
  • Fuel traditionally makes their releases a few months behind the OpenStack release to integration all the functionality there.
• All projects above should current be release:independent, until they are able to (and willing) to coordinate their own releases with the projects following the common release cycle.
• The release team currently supports 3 models:
  • release:cycle-with-milestones is the traditional Nova model with one release at the end of a 6-month dev cycle and a stable branch derived from that.
  • release:cycle-with-intermediary is the traditional Swift model, with releases as-needed during the 6-month development cycle, and a stable branch created from the last release in the cycle.
  • release:independent, for projects that don’t follow the release cycle at all.
    • Can make a release supporting the Mitaka release (including stable updates).
      • Can call the branch stable/mitaka even after the Mitaka release cycle, as long as the branch is stable and not development.
    • Should clearly document that their release is *compatible with* the OpenStack Mitaka release, rather than *part of* the Mitaka release.

The content below is taken from the original (OpenStack Developer Mailing List Digest November 14-20), to continue reading please visit the site. Remember to respect the Author & Copyright.

Time to Make Some Assertions About Your Projects

• The technical committee defined a number of “assert” tags which allows a project team to to make assertions about their own deliverables:
  • assert:follows-standard-deprecation
  • assert:supports-upgrade
  • assert:supports-rolling-upgrade
• Read more on their definitions [1]
• Update the project.yaml [2] of which tags apply to your project already.
• The OpenStack foundation will use “assert”tags very soon in the project navigator [3].

Making Stable Maintenance Its Own OpenStack Project Team

• Continuing discussion from last week [4]…
• Negatives:
  • Not enough work to warrant a designated “team”.
  • The change is unlikely to bring a meaning full improvement to the situation, sudden new resources.
• Positives:
  • * An empowered team could tackle new coordination tasks, like engaging more directly in converging stable branch rules across teams, or producing tools.
  • Release management doesn’t overlap anymore with stable branch, so having them under that PTL is limiting and inefficient
  • Reinforcing the branding (by giving it its own team) may encourage more organizations to affect new resources to it
• Matt Riedemann offers to lead the team.

Release Countdown For Week R-19, November 23-27

• Mitaka-1 milestone scheduled for December 1-3.
• Teams should be…
  • Wrapping up incomplete work left over from the end of the Liberty cycle .
  • Finalizing and announcing plans from the summit.
  • Completing specs and blueprints.
• The openstack/release repository will be used to manage Mitaka 1 milestone tags.
• Reno [5] will be used instead of Launchpad for tracking completed work. Make sure any release notes done for this cycle are committed to your master branchless before proposing the milestone tag.

New API Guidelines Read for Cross Project Review

• The following will be merged soon:
  • Adding introduction to API micro version guideline [6].
  • Add description of pagination parameters [7].
  • A guideline for errors [8].
• These will be brought up in the next cross project meeting [9].

The content below is taken from the original (OpenStack Weekly Community Newsletter (Nov. 14 – 20)), to continue reading please visit the site. Remember to respect the Author & Copyright.

A primer on Magnum, OpenStack containers-as-a-service

Adrian Otto, project team lead, on how Magnum works and what problems it can solve for you.

OpenStack Mitaka release: what’s next for Ansible, Oslo and Designate

Meet the project team leads (PTLs) for these OpenStack projects and find out how to get involved.

• Learn what’s coming in other OpenStack projects in the Mitaka release on the OpenStack Foundation playlist.

Community feedback

OpenStack is always interested in feedback and community contributions, if you would like to see a new section in the OpenStack Weekly Community Newsletter or have ideas on how to present content please get in touch: [email protected].

Reports from Previous Events 

• Two OpenStack operators share their latest action items

Deadlines and Contributors Notifications

• Call for papers:
  • OSCON 2016 deadline: November 24, 2015
  • FOSDEM 2016 
    • Testing and Automation November 30, 2015
    • Virtualization & IaaS December 1, 2015
    • Containers & Process Isolation December 1, 2015
    • Config Management December 1, 2015
  • Continuous Lifecycle London Deadline: December 1, 2015
  • PyCon 2016 deadline: Jan 3, 2016
  • USENIX Annual Technical Conference 2016 deadline: February 1, 2016

Security Advisories and Notices 

• None this week

Tips ‘n Tricks 

• By Dan Smith: Upgrades in OpenStack Nova: Remote Procedure Call APIs
• By Dan Smith: Upgrades in OpenStack Nova: Objects
• By Rossella Sblendido: How VMs get access to their metadata in Neutron
• By Adam Young: Translating Between RDO/RHOS and Upstream OpenStack releases

Upcoming Events 

• Nov 21, 2015 11/21 Meet w/ you – Summit Keynote,Container, Neutron, Cinder… Shanghai, CN
• Nov 21, 2015 OpenStack云环境的测试与评估（­兼与社区大咖畅聊东京峰会见闻）Beijing, CN
• Nov 22, 2015 OpenStack & SDN/NFV at JNU New Delhi, IN
• Nov 24, 2015 De Marconi a Zaqar, la evolución del sistema de mensajería y notificaciones Guadalajara, MX
• Nov 26, 2015 From Liberty to Mitaka Rome, IT
• Nov 26, 2015 OpenStack Orchestratie 2015 Breda, NL
• Nov 26, 2015 From Liberty to Mitaka RM, IT