Open Stack

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Mandeep Dhami <dhami at 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 <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com>
>> > To: openstack-dev at 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 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
>