<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/05/2013 02:47 PM, Robert Collins
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ3HoZ3hPeaVJ5eR0roaCpFUbc2Y2P8zfat=L-_Udz45kL6qKQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 5 December 2013 12:34, Tim Schnell <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tim.schnell@rackspace.com"><tim.schnell@rackspace.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Heaters,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">...
So, I'm very glad someone is going to work on this; I believe there
may be use for it in Tuskar too.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Start Heater as a Stackforge project with a different core team that is
dedicated to actively working on Heater
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This would silo the folk working on the repository from those working
on Heat. -1000 on that proposition.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Incubate Heater within the Orchestration umbrella using the existing Heat
Core team
Incubate Heater with the Orchestration umbrella, but create a sub-project
team responsible for reviewing and +2s
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This would reduce the siloing effect, but you'd still have siloed core
reviewers.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The idea behind creating a separate core team either via Stackforge or an
Orchestration sub-project is so that the people actively working on Heater
can review and iterate more quickly through code revisions than dumping
Heater code through the already strained Heat review pipeline.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
So, I understand the motivation, but this is really really really
really bad thinking.
If Heat is suffering velocity problems due to not enough core reviewers do you:
A) start a related project, which all the Heat core are going to have
to be up to speed on at some point
or
B) add people onto Heat with the explicit goal of providing more
review bandwidth until the problem is solved ?
If you answer A, we need to talk.
Seriously.
Where there is a bottleneck - such as not enough reviewers -
/anything/ we do that makes the bottleneck better makes everything
better. Anything else we do has pretty much no effect, other than
costing time and effort to do it, whatever it is.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, point taken.<br>
<br>
heat-core does a reasonable job of keeping up with review load, so
there is not yet a bottleneck. However the load is taken by a small
team which would definitely need to grow if we were to take on a new
project.<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
There are certainly some reviewers who will be ready for nomination
soon if they continue increasing their review volume:<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<a
href="http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/heat-reviewers-30.txt">http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/heat-reviewers-30.txt</a><br>
<br>
It may be appropriate to relax the core review approval to a single
+2 on heatr in the early stages of the project.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>