Open Stack

It is not my intention debating, pointing fingers and finding culprits,
these issues can be addressed in some other context.

I am gonna say three things:

1) If a core-reviewer puts a -2, there must be a good reason for it. If
other reviewers blindly move on as some people seem to imply here, then
those reviewers should probably not review the code at all! My policy is to
review all the code I am interested in/I can, regardless of the score. My
-1 may be someone's +1 (or vice versa), so 'trusting' someone else's vote
is the wrong way to go about this.

2) If we all feel that this feature is important (which I am not sure it
was being marked as 'low' in oslo, not sure how it was tracked in Neutron),
there is the weekly IRC Neutron meeting to raise awareness, since all cores
participate; to the best of my knowledge we never spoke (or barely) of the
rootwrap work.

3) If people do want this work in Juno (Carl being one of them), we can
figure out how to make one final push, and assess potential regression. We
'rushed' other features late in cycle in the past (like nova/neutron event
notifications) and if we keep this disabled by default in Juno, I don't
think it's really that risky. I can work with Carl to give the patches some
more love.

Armando



On 31 July 2014 15:40, Rudra Rugge <rudra at contrailsystems.com> wrote:

> Hi Kyle,
>
> I also agree with Mandeep's suggestion of putting a time frame on the
> lingering "-2" if the addressed concerns have been taken care of. In my
> experience also a sticky -2 detracts other reviewers from reviewing an
> updated patch.
>
> Either a time-frame or a possible override by PTL (move to -1) would help
> make progress on the review.
>
> Regards,
> Rudra
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mandeep Dhami <dhami at noironetworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kyle:
>>
>> As -2 is sticky, and as there exists a possibility that the original core
>> might not get time to get back to re-reviewing his, do you think that there
>> should be clearer guidelines on it's usage (to avoid what you identified as
>> "dropping of the balls")?
>>
>> Salvatore had a good guidance in a related thread [0], do you agree with
>> something like that?
>>
>>
>> I try to avoid -2s as much as possible. I put a -2 only when I reckon your
>> patch should never be merged because it'll make the software unstable or
>> tries to solve a problem that does not exist. -2s stick across patches and
>> tend to put off other reviewers.
>>
>> [0]
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/041339.html
>>
>>
>> Or do you think that 3-5 days after an update that addresses the issues
>> identified in the original -2, we should automatically remove that -2? If
>> this does not happen often, this process does not have to be automated,
>> just an "exception" that the PTL can exercise to address issues where the
>> original reason for -2 has been addressed and nothing new has been
>> identified?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Yuriy Taraday <yorik.sar at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> and even less
>>> >> possibly rootwrap [3] if the security implications can be worked out.
>>> >
>>> > Can you please provide some input on those security implications that
>>> are
>>> > not worked out yet?
>>> > I'm really surprised to see such comments in some ML thread not
>>> directly
>>> > related to the BP. Why is my spec blocked? Neither spec [1] nor code
>>> (which
>>> > is available for a really long time now [2] [3]) can get enough
>>> reviewers'
>>> > attention because of those groundless -2's. Should I abandon these
>>> change
>>> > requests and file new ones to get some eyes on my code and proposals?
>>> It's
>>> > just getting ridiculous. Let's take a look at timeline, shall we?
>>> >
>>> I share your concerns here as well, and I'm sorry you've had a bad
>>> experience working with the community here.
>>>
>>> > Mar, 25 - first version of the first part of Neutron code is published
>>> at
>>> > [2]
>>> > Mar, 28 - first reviewers come and it gets -1'd by Mark because of
>>> lack of
>>> > BP (thankful it wasn't -2 yet, so reviews continued)
>>> > Apr, 1 - Both Oslo [5] and Neturon [6] BPs are created;
>>> > Apr, 2 - first version of the second part of Neutron code is published
>>> at
>>> > [3];
>>> > May, 16 - first version of Neutron spec is published at [1];
>>> > May, 19 - Neutron spec gets frozen by Mark's -2 (because Oslo BP is not
>>> > approved yet);
>>> > May, 21 - first part of Neutron code [2] is found generally OK by
>>> reviewers;
>>> > May, 21 - first version of Oslo spec is published at [4];
>>> > May, 29 - a version of the second part of Neutron code [3] is
>>> published that
>>> > later raises only minor comments by reviewers;
>>> > Jun, 5 - both parts of Neutron code [2] [3] get frozen by -2 from Mark
>>> > because BP isn't approved yet;
>>> > Jun, 23 - Oslo spec [4] is mostly ironed out;
>>> > Jul, 8 - Oslo spec [4] is merged, Neutron spec immediately gets +1 and
>>> +2;
>>> > Jul, 20 - SAD kicks in, no comments from Mark or anyone on blocked
>>> change
>>> > requests;
>>> > Jul, 24 - in response to Kyle's suggestion I'm filing SAD exception;
>>> > Jul, 31 - I'm getting final "decision" as follows: "Your BP will
>>> extremely
>>> > unlikely get to Juno".
>>> >
>>> > Do you see what I see? Code and spec is mostly finished in May (!)
>>> where the
>>> > "mostly" part is lack of reviewers because of that Mark's -2. And 1
>>> month
>>> > later when all bureaucratic reasons fall off nothing happens. Don't
>>> think I
>>> > didn't try to approach Mark. Don't think I didn't approach Kyle on this
>>> > issue. Because I did. But nothing happens and another month passes by
>>> and I
>>> > get "You know, may be later" general response. Noone (but those who
>>> knew
>>> > about it originally) even looks at my code for 2 months already
>>> because Mark
>>> > doesn't think (I hope he did think) he should lift -2 and I'm getting
>>> "why
>>> > not wait another 3 months?"
>>> >
>>> > What the hell is that? You don't want to land features that doesn't
>>> have
>>> > code 2 weeks before Juno-3, I get that. My code has almost finished
>>> code by
>>> > 3.5 months before that! And you're considering to throw it to Kilo
>>> because
>>> > of some mystical issues that must've been covered in Oslo spec [4] and
>>> if
>>> > you like it they can be covered in Neutron spec [1] but you have to let
>>> > reviewers see it!
>>> >
>>> > I don't think that Mark's actions (lack of them, actually) are what's
>>> > expected from core reviewer. No reaction to requests from developer
>>> whose
>>> > code got frozen by his -2. No reaction (at least no visible one) to
>>> PTL's
>>> > requests (and Kyle assured me he made those). Should we consider Mark
>>> > uncontrollable and unreachable? Why does he have -2 right in the first
>>> place
>>> > then? So how should I overcome his inaction? I can recreate new change
>>> > requests and hope he won't just -2 them with no comment at all. But
>>> that
>>> > would be just a sign of total failure of our shiny bureaucracy.
>>> >
>>> I have reached out a few times to Mark, and I'm not going to put words
>>> in his mouth here, but what I can say is that the Neutron Core team
>>> tries it's best to read all BPs and code which are submitted. In this
>>> particular case, there was some dropping of the balls in how we
>>> handled this. Carl has reached out to me a few times on this, and I've
>>> reached out to Mark as well to remove the -2 here. Sometimes, even
>>> with best intentions, things go awry.
>>>
>>> To move forward, there is interest in getting this feature upstream,
>>> maybe even in Juno. But given some concerns I've heard from Mark and
>>> now Thierry, maybe this does make sense to move to Kilo. I'll wait for
>>> Mark to reply on this thread and chime in here, as well as Thierry if
>>> he has more to say. Outside that, if Carl is willing to shepherd this
>>> and we can get Mark to reply, it's still possible we can get this into
>>> Juno.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kyle
>>>
>>> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/93889 - Neutron spec
>>> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/82787 - first part of Neutron code
>>> > [3] https://review.openstack.org/84667 - second part of Neutron code
>>> > [4] https://review.openstack.org/94613 - Oslo spec
>>> > [5] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/rootwrap-daemon-mode
>>> > [6]
>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/rootwrap-daemon-mode
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Kind regards, Yuriy.
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140731/507b40fd/attachment.html>