[openstack-dev] [TRIPLEO] tripleo-core update october

Martyn Taylor mtaylor at redhat.com
Tue Oct 8 16:01:44 UTC 2013


On 08/10/13 16:22, Clint Byrum wrote:
> I don't meant to pick on you personally Jiří, but I have singled this
> message out because I feel you have captured the objections to Robert's
> initial email well.
>
> Excerpts from Jiří Stránský's message of 2013-10-08 04:30:29 -0700:
>> On 8.10.2013 11:44, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>> Whilst I can see that deciding on who is Core is a difficult task, I do
>>> feel that creating a competitive environment based on no. reviews will
>>> be detrimental to the project.
>>>
>>> I do feel this is going to result in quantity over quality. Personally,
>>> I'd like to see every commit properly reviewed and tested before getting
>>> a vote and I don't think these stats are promoting that.
>> +1. I feel that such metric favors shallow "i like this code"-reviews as
>> opposed to deep "i verified that it actually does what it
>> should"-reviews. E.g. i hit one such example just today morning on
>> tuskarclient. If i just looked at the code as the other reviewer did,
>> we'd let in code that doesn't do what it should. There's nothing bad on
>> making a mistake, but I wouldn't like to foster environment of quick
>> shallow reviews by having such metrics for core team.
>>
>
> I think you may not have worked long enough with Robert Collins to
> understand what Robert is doing with the stats. While it may seem that
> Robert has simply drawn a line in the sand and is going to sit back and
> wait for everyone to cross it before nominating them, nothing could be
> further from the truth.
Sure.  So I did read the original email, as "drawing a line in the 
sand".  I obviously got the wrong end of that stick.  Apologies.

But yeah, you make a fair point, we are very new to the team, as we get 
to know people a little better we can put things into context and avoid 
such ramblings. :P

Cheers
>
> As one gets involved and start -1'ing and +1'ing, one can expect feedback
> from all of us as core reviewers. It is part of the responsibility of
> being a core reviewer to communicate not just with the submitter of
> patches, but also with the other reviewers. If I see shallow +1's from
> people consistently, I'm going to reach out to those people and ask them
> to elaborate on their reviews, and I'm going to be especially critical
> of their -1's.
>
>> I think it's also important who actually *writes* the code, not just who
>> does reviews. I find it odd that none of the people who most contributed
>> to any of the Tuskar projects in the last 3 months would make it onto
>> the core list [1], [2], [3].
>>
> I think having written a lot of code in a project is indeed a good way
> to get familiar with the code. However, it is actually quite valuable
> to have reviewers on a project who did not write _any_ of the code,
> as their investment in the code itself is not as deep. They will look
> at each change with fresh eyes and bring fewer assumptions.
>
> Reviewing is a different skill than coding, and thus I think it is o-k
> to measure it differently than coding.
>
>> This might also suggest that we should be looking at contributions to
>> the particular projects, not just the whole program in general. We're
>> such a big program that one's staleness towards some of the components
>> (or being short on global review count) doesn't necessarily mean the
>> person is not important contributor/reviewer on some of the other
>> projects, and i'd also argue this doesn't affect the quality of his work
>> (e.g. there's no relationship between tuskarclient and say, t-i-e,
>> whatsoever).
>>
> Indeed, I don't think we would nominate or approve a reviewer if they
> just did reviews, and never came in the IRC channel, participated in
> mailing list discussions, or tried to write patches. It would be pretty
> difficult to hold a dialog in reviews with somebody who is not involved
> with the program as a whole.
>
>> So i'd say we should get on with having a greater base of core folks and
>> count on people using their own good judgement on where will they
>> exercise their +/-2 powers (i think it's been working very well so far),
>> or alternatively split tripleo-core into some subteams.
>>
> If we see the review queue get backed up and response times rising, I
> could see a push to grow the core review team early. But we're talking
> about a 30 day sustained review contribution. That means for 30 days
> you're +1'ing instead of +2'ing, and then maybe another 30 days while we
> figure out who wants core powers and hold a vote.
>
> If this is causing anyone stress, we should definitely address that and
> make a change. However, I feel the opposite. Knowing what is expected
> and being able to track where I sit on some of those expectations is
> extremely comforting. Of course, easy to say up here with my +2/-2. ;)
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list