Open Stack

On 06/24/2015 10:17 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart at redhat.com
> <mailto:kchamart at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:02:27AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 6/24/2015 9:09 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
>     > >On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:51:38PM +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>     > >>On 06/24/2015 02:33 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> 
>     [. . .]
> 
>     > >This is one of the _baffling_ aspects -- that a so-called "super core"
>     > >has to approve specs with *no* obvious valid reasons.  As Jay Pipes
>     > >mentioned once, this indeed seems like a vestigial remnant from old
>     > >times.
>     > >
>     > >FWIW, I agree with others on this thread, Nova should get rid of this
>     > >specific senseless non-process.  At least a couple of cycles ago.
>     >
>     > Specs were only added a couple of cycles ago... :)  And they were added to
>     > fill a gap, which has already been pointed out in this thread.  So if we
>     > remove them without a replacement for that gap, we regress.
> 
>     Oops, I didn't mean to say that "Specs" as a concept should be gone.
>     Sorr for poor phrasing.
> 
>     My question was answred by Joe Gordon with this review:
> 
>         https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184912/
> 
> 
> 
> A bit more context:
> 
> We discussed the very issue of adjusting the review rules for nova-specs
> to give all cores +2 power. But in the end we decided not to in the end.
> 

I was expecting to also read a "why" here, since I was not at the summit.

> As someone who does a lot of spec reviews, I take +1s from the right
> people (not always nova-cores) to mean a lot, so much that I regularly
> will simply skim the spec myself before +2ing it. If a subject matter
> expert who I trust +1s a spec, that is usually all I need. 
> 
> * +1/-1s from the right people have a lot of power on specs. So the
> review burden isn't just on the people with '+W' power.  We may not have
> done a great job of making this point clear.
> * There are many subject matter experts outside nova-core who's vote
> means a lot. For example PTL's of other projects the spec impacts.
>

This is exactly the kind of cognitive dissonance I find hard to not get
upset about :)

Code is what matters ultimately - the devil _is_ in the details, and I
can bet you that it is extremely unlikely that a PTL of any other
project is also going to go and do a detailed review of a feature branch
in Nova, and have the understanding of the state of the surrounding
codebase needed to do it properly. That's what's up to the nova
reviewers to deal with. I too wish Nova code was in a place where it was
possible to just do "architecture", but I think we all agree it's
nowhere near that.

With all due respect to you Joe (and I do have a lot of respect for you)
- I can't get behind how Nova specs puts process and documents over
working and maintainable code. I will never be able to get behind that!

I honestly think Nova is today worse off then it could have been, just
because of that mindset. You can't "process" away the hard things in
coding, sorry.

N.