Open Stack

On 20 February 2014 14:13, Vincent Untz <vuntz at suse.com> wrote:
> Le jeudi 20 février 2014, à 12:02 -0800, Armando M. a écrit :
>> Thomas,
>>
>> I feel your frustration, however before complaining please do follow
>> the actual chain of events.
>>
>> Patch [1]: I asked a question which I never received an answer to.
>> Patch [2]: I did put a -1, but I have nothing against this patch per
>> se. This was only been recently abandoned and my -1 lied primarily to
>> give patch [1] the opportunity to be resumed.
>
> Well, I did reply to your comment on the same day, so I'm not sure what
> else I, as submitter, could have done more to address your comment and
> convince you to change the -1 to +1.
>
>> No action on a negative review means automatic expiration, if you lose
>> interest in something you care about whose fault is that?
>
> I beg to disagree. If we let patches go to automatic expiration, then we
> as a project will just lose contributors. I don't think we should accept
> that as a fatality.

The power to restore a change is the hands of the contributor, not the reviewer.

Issues have different priorities and people shouldn't feel singled out
if their changes lose steam. The best course of action is to keep
sticking by them until the light at the end of the tunnel is in sight
:)

That said, I think one of issue that affect the delay of approvals of
patches dealing with DB migrations (that apply across multiple Neutron
releases) is the lack of a stable CI job (like Grenade) that validate
them and relieve the core reviewer of some burden of going through the
patch, the testbed etc.

This is coming though, we just need to be more patient, venting
frustration doesn't fix code!

A.

>
> I just restored the patch, btw :-)
>
> Vincent
>
>> A.
>>
>> [1] = https://review.openstack.org/#/c/52757
>> [2] = https://review.openstack.org/#/c/68611
>>
>> On 19 February 2014 06:28, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've seen this one:
>> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/68611/
>> >
>> > which is suppose to fix something for Postgress. This is funny, because
>> > I was doing the exact same patch for fixing it for SQLite. Though this
>> > was before the last summit in HK.
>> >
>> > Since then, I just gave up on having my Debian specific patch [1] being
>> > upstreamed. No review, despite my insistence. Mark, on the HK summit,
>> > told me that it was pending discussion about what would be the policy
>> > for SQLite.
>> >
>> > Guys, this is disappointing. That's the 2nd time the same patch is being
>> > blocked, with no explanations.
>> >
>> > Could 2 core reviewers have a *serious* look at this patch, and explain
>> > why it's not ok for it to be approved? If nobody says why, then could
>> > this be approved, so we can move on?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=openstack/neutron.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/fix-alembic-migration-with-sqlite3.patch;h=9108b45aaaf683e49b15338bacd813e50e9f563d;hb=b44e96d9e1d750e35513d63877eb05f167a175d8
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> --
> Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev