Open Stack

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 03/25/2014 10:42 AM, Steven Sonnenberg wrote:
> > I just want to point out, there were no changes required to pass the
> tests. We were running those tests in Brazil and tunneling NFS and iSCSI
> across the Internet which explain timeout issues. Those are the same tests
> that passed a month earlier before we went into the cycle of
> review/fix/format etc.
>
> I think the key point is the current timing.  We're aiming to do RC1 for
> projects this week if possible.  FFEs were really only allowed weeks ago.
>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
Hey Steven,

As we discussed last night, my issue is that it's just very late at this
point.  Yes, your patch has been in review for 45 days, however even then
it was pushing it.  By the way 45 days at this stage of the release is not
a long time.  My question is if people have been running this since
HongKong why did you wait until February before submitting it?

It is minimal risk to the core code, no doubt.  However, I've taking a
pretty hard stance with other 3'rd party drivers that have missed the cut
off dates and I don't see a compelling reason to make an exception here
based just on principal.

I'd also like to point out that contributions help when it comes to FFE's.
 In other words I don't see any activity other than this driver for the
last 4 months (reviews or otherwise).  When somebody comes in with a patch
past a date and asks for an exception the first thing I consider is whether
they've been active for the cycle or if they're just racing the clock to
get a driver in for the next release.

Something else I consider is if current code is maintained, in other words
you have a driver in the code base currently and it hasn't been maintained
since August (again last minute fixes before RC).  Now during RC you have
another driver that you want added.  If there was active involvement and
maintenance of the code and I didn't see a pattern here (pattern of
late/last minute submission) I likely would have a different opinion.

I'm still a -1 on the exception, even if it inherently doesn't introduce
significant risk.  It's not the code or the driver itself at this point but
the point regarding dates, process etc.

[1] History of maintenance for existing HDS code in Cinder
[2] Commit history for Erlon (author of the current patch/driver)
[3] Commit history for the author of the previous driver including the last
minute updates

Thanks,
John

[1]:
https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commits/master/cinder/volume/drivers/hds
[2]:
https://review.openstack.org/#/dashboard/10058
[3]:
https://review.openstack.org/#/dashboard/7447
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140325/0ae7d092/attachment.html>