elastic-reckeck maintenance takeover

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2020-08-11 19:30:20 +0100 (+0100), Sorin Sbarnea wrote:
> I would like to request taking over the maintenance of
> elastic-recheck project.
> 
> My team (triple-ci), really valued the tool and has a strong
> interest not only in keeping it alive but also improving it.
> 
> While the team considered writing our own tool or forking it and
> changing it for our own use, adding missing features like multiple
> gerrit servers or multiple issue trackers, I advocated that we
> should instead become active maintainers and avoid the
> not-invented-here approach.
> 
> I already did some work towards making the tool an easy to deploy
> standalone container. Starting new instances for testing or
> production should soon be as easy as a one-line command.

I wouldn't consider it a takeover. OpenDev exists to promote
collaboration on tools by the projects making use of them. That
TripleO's CI subteam finds Elastic Recheck a useful tool and wants
to take on its maintenance burden is exactly the sort of thing we
want, I think.

> I am more than happy to act as a liason between openstack-infra
> and triplo-ci and assure that no changes are made that could
> negatively impact openstack main deployment.

Just a reminder, "openstack-infra" is no more, except still being a
vestigial name for the OpenStack TaCT SIG's IRC channel. I think
we've been considering Elastic Recheck a broader OpenDev service
anyway, at least insofar as the basic mechanism by which it operates
is easily extended to cover non-OpenStack projects hosted in
OpenDev. It is, however, worth noting that the massive 6-node/6TB
Elasticsearch cluster and 20 Logstash import workers on which this
service relies represent a substantial chunk of our overall "control
plane" resource utilization, and lately hasn't seemed to me that
it's nearly popular enough to responsibly warrant the cost to our
donors.

> I propose adding tripleo-ci-core gerrit group as core to the
> project but if there are concerns that the group is too wide, I
> can also provide a list of people that I trust to follow the
> expected review process.

This sounds entirely reasonable to me. Thanks to the team for
offering to help with it!
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opendev.org/pipermail/service-discuss/attachments/20200811/4457b4d9/attachment.sig>