On 10/08/2013 10:27 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
Perhaps the best thing to do here is to get tuskar-ui to be part of
the horizon program, and utilise it's review team?
This is planned. But it wont happen soon.
On 8 October 2013 19:31, Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzuma...@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.
Please see Russell's excellent stats:
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-30.txt
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt
For joining and retaining core I look at the 90 day statistics; folk
who are particularly low in the 30 day stats get a heads up: it's not
a purely mechanical process :).
As we've just merged review teams with Tuskar devs, we need to allow
some time for everyone to get up to speed; so for folk who are core as
a result of the merge will be retained as core, but November I expect
the stats will have normalised somewhat and that special handling
won't be needed.
IMO these are the reviewers doing enough over 90 days to meet the
requirements for core:
| lifeless ** | 349 8 140 2 199 57.6% | 2
( 1.0%) |
| clint-fewbar ** | 329 2 54 1 272 83.0% | 7
( 2.6%) |
| cmsj ** | 248 1 25 1 221 89.5% | 13
( 5.9%) |
| derekh ** | 88 0 28 23 37 68.2% | 6
( 10.0%) |
Who are already core, so thats easy.
If you are core, and not on that list, that may be because you're
coming from tuskar, which doesn't have 90 days of history, or you need
to get stuck into some more reviews :).
Now, 30 day history - this is the heads up for folk:
| clint-fewbar ** | 179 2 27 0 150 83.8% | 6 ( 4.0%) |
| cmsj ** | 179 1 15 0 163 91.1% | 11 ( 6.7%) |
| lifeless ** | 129 3 39 2 85 67.4% | 2 ( 2.3%) |
| derekh ** | 41 0 11 0 30 73.2% | 0 ( 0.0%) |
| slagle | 37 0 11 26 0 70.3% | 3 ( 11.5%) |
| ghe.rivero | 28 0 4 24 0 85.7% | 2 ( 8.3%) |
I'm using the fairly simple metric of 'average at least one review a
day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of
the code to be an effective reviewer'. James and Ghe, good stuff -
you're well on your way to core. If you're not in that list, please
treat this as a heads-up that you need to do more reviews to keep on
top of what's going on, whether so you become core, or you keep it.
In next month's update I'll review whether to remove some folk that
aren't keeping on top of things, as it won't be a surprise :).
Cheers,
Rob
--
Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Hi,
I feel like I should point out that before tuskar merged with tripleo, we had
some distinction between the team working on the tuskar api and the team
working on the UI, with each team focusing reviews on its particular experties.
The latter team works quite closely with horizon, to the extent of spending a
lot of time involved with horizon development and blueprints. This is done so
that horizon changes can be understood and utilized by tuskar-ui.
For that reason, I feel like a UI core reviewer split here might make sense. .
. ? tuskar-ui doesn't require as many updates as tripleo/tuskar api, but a
certain level of horizon and UI expertise is definitely helpful in reviewing
the UI patches.
Thanks,
Tzu-Mainn Chen
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
