enhancements/update/update-blocker-lifecycle: Propose a new enhancement #475
Conversation
|
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle stale |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
lifecycle/stale
|
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle rotten |
openshift-ci-robot
added
lifecycle/rotten
|
/remove-lifecycle stale |
|
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
|
@openshift-bot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
We got very close to missing the importance of a vSphere hostname bug before 4.7.z -> 4.7.4 edges landed in /reopen |
|
@wking: Reopened this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
wking
force-pushed
the
update-blocker-lifecycle
branch
from
064b4f9 to
07046e6
Compare
wking
force-pushed
the
update-blocker-lifecycle
branch
from
07046e6 to
8af5330
Compare
|
/lifecycle frozen |
|
@wking: The In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this enhancement / workflow change (not sure if this proposal belongs in the enhancements vs an issue on the OSO/BAT team Jira board) may help one team better find issues I don't think this goes far enough in addressing the underlying/system issues we have with product quality that lead us to need the 'blocked' edges mechanism.
|
|
||
| # Update-blocker Lifecycle | ||
|
|
||
| We occasionally have bugs which impact update success or the stability of the target release. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| We occasionally have bugs which impact update success or the stability of the target release. | |
| We regularly have bugs which impact update success or the stability of the target release. |
| # Update-blocker Lifecycle | ||
|
|
||
| We occasionally have bugs which impact update success or the stability of the target release. | ||
| When that happens, we protect users by [removing the impacted updates from our update recommendations][graph-data-block]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO we over use this mechanism, and the rational / reason for over using it is because we can't tailor the updates to specific accounts or classes of accounts.
IE: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OTA-267 & https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OTA-191
|
|
||
| - [x] Enhancement is `implementable` | ||
| - [x] Design details are appropriately documented from clear requirements | ||
| - [ ] Test plan is defined |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@xltian don't we define a test plan to proactively find/identify bugs with each release?
If we are already doing this; then what is missing with the current process that is leading to so many issues being found / requiring us to use a blocked edge?
| - [ ] Graduation criteria for dev preview, tech preview, GA | ||
| - [ ] User-facing documentation is created in [openshift-docs](https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/) | ||
|
|
||
| ## Summary |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nothing in the summary of this proposal addresses the core/root issue (the underlying product quality issue that is leading to the us having to 'block' edges in the first place.
All this proposal does; is enhance our ability for individuals to 'signal' things that 'might' be a possible issue; and for decision makers to 'find' those issues in the vast sea of issues that we face day to day.
|
/lifecycle frozen |
|
@LalatenduMohanty: The In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
|
@openshift-bot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/reopen |
wking
force-pushed
the
update-blocker-lifecycle
branch
from
39fc1e8 to
5f22c25
Compare
|
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
|
@openshift-bot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/reopen |
|
@LalatenduMohanty: Reopened this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
|
@openshift-bot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/reopen |
|
@LalatenduMohanty: Reopened this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: LalatenduMohanty The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
Generated with: $ (cd enhancements/update/update-blocker-lifecycle; dot -Tsvg flow.dot >flow.svg) using: $ dot -V dot - graphviz version 2.47.1 (0)
wking
force-pushed
the
update-blocker-lifecycle
branch
from
5f22c25 to
504432a
Compare
|
/lgtm |
| Write tooling that automatically: | ||
|
|
||
| * Removes the new labels if any labels from later in the process are set. | ||
| * Adds `Upgrades` and `UpgradeBlocker` to any bugs with any of the new labels. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wking have you brought this use case to the jira migration team to make sure they are thinking about how to support things like this when we go to jira?
|
|
||
| No drawbacks. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Alternatives |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
was there a reason we couldn't use flags (UpgradeBlocker?, UpgradeBlocker+, UpgradeBlocker-) instead of keywords?
UpgradeBlocker? would equate to "impact statement requested"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(flags would be more consistent with our release blocking mechanism)
No description provided.