<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hey I made the list!</font>
<br>
<br><a href=https://review.openstack.org/#/c/25355/><font size=3 color=blue><u>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/25355/</u></font></a><font size=3>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Just wanted to point out for nova in
longest-waiting reviews based on first revision:</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1. </font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">94
days, 12 hours, 49 minutes - </font><a href=https://review.openstack.org/25355><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u>https://review.openstack.org/25355</u></font></a><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> (PowerVM
resize and migrate test cases)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This one is a bit skewed because it
was abandoned due to inactivity and then I picked it back up by assigning
the bug to myself and contributing to the original review.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Is there a way to take that into account
in the metrics? Or is this a process issue, i.e. should I have left
this abandoned and pushed up a new review based on the original?<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">Thanks,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#8f8f8f face="Arial"><b>MATT RIEDEMANN</b></font><font size=1 face="Arial"><br>
Advisory Software Engineer<br>
Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development</font>
<table width=680 style="border-collapse:collapse;">
<tr height=8>
<td width=680 colspan=2 style="border-style:solid;border-color:#000000;border-width:0px 0px 0px 0px;padding:0px 0px;">
<hr>
<tr valign=top height=8>
<td width=418 style="border-style:solid;border-color:#000000;border-width:0px 0px 0px 0px;padding:0px 0px;"><font size=1 color=#4181c0 face="Arial"><b>Phone:</b></font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="Arial">
1-507-253-7622</font><font size=1 color=#4181c0 face="Arial"> | <b>Mobile:</b></font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="Arial">
1-507-990-1889</font><font size=1 color=#4181c0 face="Arial"><b><br>
E-mail:</b></font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="Arial"> </font><a href=mailto:mriedem@us.ibm.com target=_blank><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="Arial"><u>mriedem@us.ibm.com</u></font></a>
<td width=261 style="border-style:solid;border-color:#000000;border-width:0px 0px 0px 0px;padding:0px 0px;">
<div align=right><img src=cid:_1_096D3D64096D37D000598B7886257B98 width=83 height=30 alt=IBM><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="Arial"><br>
<br>
3605 Hwy 52 N<br>
Rochester, MN 55901-1407<br>
United States</font></div></table>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Russell Bryant <rbryant@redhat.com></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">OpenStack Development
Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">06/27/2013 09:45 PM</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[openstack-dev]
[Metrics][Nova] Another take on review turnaround
stats</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Greetings,<br>
<br>
The key metric I have been using for knowing whether we are keeping up<br>
with review requests is the average wait time for getting a review. In<br>
a previous thread, we set a goal of keeping that under 4 days (at least<br>
by the end of the week, may be higher after a weekend). This is<br>
calculated using the time that the *latest* patch revision was posted.<br>
We have been keeping up with this (Nova at 3.5 days right now).<br>
<br>
I've been getting a lot of complaints this week about review turnaround.<br>
It's important to me that we're doing this well, but action needs to be<br>
based on real data.<br>
<br>
One of the theories was that patches are having to be rebased a bunch,<br>
so they have been waiting longer than the stats say. True, but by
how<br>
much? The answer is now in the stats:<br>
<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/all-openreviews.html"><tt><font size=2>http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/all-openreviews.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
<br>
The results are much better than I was afraid of. On average across
all<br>
projects, patches waiting for review have an age of just under 14 days<br>
since they were first posted. Nova is below average, sitting at an<br>
average of just over 10 days. That doesn't seem bad at all, to me.<br>
<br>
So, if we have a problem, it's not Nova specific, at least. It's
harder<br>
to set a goal for this metric since it's not entirely in the hands of<br>
reviewers like the other one.<br>
<br>
Suggestions for additional tweaks welcome.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Russell Bryant<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev"><tt><font size=2>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
<br>
</font></tt>
<br>