On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Mandeep Dhami <dh...@noironetworks.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful. > > Also, would it help the process by having some clear guidelines/expectations > around review time as well? In particular, if you have put a -1 or -2, and > the issues that you have identified have been addressed by an update (or at > least the original author thinks that he has addressed your concern), is it > reasonable to expect that you will re-review in a "reasonable time"? This > way, the updates can either proceed, or be rejected, as they are being > developed instead of accumulating in a backlog that we then try to get > approved on the last day of the cut-off? > I agree, if someone puts a -2 on a patch stressing an issue and the committer has resolved those issues, the -2 should also be resolved in a timely manner. If the issue can't be resolved in the review itself, as this wiki page [1] indicates, the issue should be moved to the mailing list.
Thanks, Kyle [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CodeReviewGuidelines > Regards, > Mandeep > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Steve Gordon <sgor...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> >> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> > >> > On 07/24/2014 10:05 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote: >> > > Alan Kavanagh wrote: >> > > >> > >> If we have more work being put on the table, then more Core >> > >> members would definitely go a long way with assisting this, we cant >> > >> wait for folks to be reviewing stuff as an excuse to not get >> > >> features landed in a given release. >> > >> > We absolutely can and should wait for folks to be reviewing stuff >> > properly. A large number of problems in OpenStack code and flawed design >> > can be attributed to impatience and pushing through code that wasn't >> > ready. >> > >> > I've said this many times, but the best way to get core reviews on >> > patches that you submit is to put the effort into reviewing others' >> > code. Core reviewers are more willing to do reviews for someone who is >> > clearly trying to help the project in more ways than just pushing their >> > own code. Note that, Alan, I'm not trying to imply that you are guilty >> > of the above! :) I'm just recommending techniques for the general >> > contributor community who are not on a core team (including myself!). >> >> I agree with all of the above, I do think however there is another >> un-addressed area where there *may* be room for optimization - which is how >> we use the earlier milestones. I apologize in advance because this is >> somewhat tangential to Alan's points but I think it is relevant to the >> general frustration around what did/didn't get approved in time for the >> deadline and ultimately what will or wont get reviewed in time to make the >> release versus being punted to Kilo or even further down the road. >> >> We land very, very, little in terms of feature work in the *-1 and *-2 >> milestones in each release (and this is not just a Neutron thing). Even >> though we know without a doubt that the amount of work currently approved >> for J-3 is not realistic we also know that we will land significantly more >> features in this milestone than the other two that have already been and >> gone, which to my way of thinking is actually kind of backwards to the ideal >> situation. >> >> What is unclear to me however is how much of this is a result of >> difficulty identifying and approving less controversial/more straightforward >> specifications quickly following summit (keeping in mind this time around >> there was arguably some additional delay as the *-specs repository approach >> was bedded down), an unavoidable result of human nature being to *really* >> push when there is a *hard* deadline to beat, or just that these earlier >> milestones are somewhat impacted from fatigue from the summit (I know a lot >> of people also try to take some well earned time off around this period + of >> course many are still concentrated on stabilization of the previous >> release). As a result it's unclear whether there is anything concrete that >> can be done to change this but I thought I would bring it up in case anyone >> else has any bright ideas! >> >> > [SNIP] >> >> > > We ought to (in my personal opinion) be supplying core reviewers to >> > > at least a couple of OpenStack projects. But one way or another we >> > > need to get more capabilities reviewed and merged. My personal top >> > > disappointments are with the current state of IPv6, HA, and QoS, but >> > > I'm sure other folks can list lots of other capabilities that >> > > they're really going to be frustrated to find lacking in Juno. >> > >> > I agree with you. It's not something that is fixable overnight, or by a >> > small group of people, IMO. It's something that needs to be addressed by >> > the core project teams, acting as a group in order to reduce review wait >> > times and ensure that there is responsiveness, transparency and >> > thoroughness to the review (code as well as spec) process. >> > >> > I put together some slides recently that have some insights and >> > (hopefully) some helpful suggestions for both doing and receiving code >> > reviews, as well as staying sane in the era of corporate agendas. >> > Perhaps folks will find it useful: >> > >> > http://bit.ly/navigating-openstack-community >> >> As an aside this is a very well put together deck, thanks for sharing! >> >> -Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
