<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Lucida Console";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 4 5 4 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
mso-fareast-language:EN-CA;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">+1 I think your suggestions are admirable and would be good if this is taken on board, having a timeframe around items would definitely help focus and ensure
reviews in a timely manner.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">/Alan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Rudra Rugge [mailto:rudra@contrailsystems.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> July-31-14 6:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Spec exceptions are closed, FPF is August 21<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Hi Kyle,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Either a time-frame or a possible override by PTL (move to -1) would help make progress on the review.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Rudra<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mandeep Dhami <<a href="mailto:dhami@noironetworks.com" target="_blank">dhami@noironetworks.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Hi Kyle:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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")? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Salvatore had a good guidance in a related thread [0], do you agree with something like that?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<pre style="mso-margin-top-alt:18.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#535353"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="mso-margin-top-alt:18.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#535353">I try to avoid -2s as much as possible. I put a -2 only when I reckon your<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="mso-margin-top-alt:18.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#535353">patch should never be merged because it'll make the software unstable or<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="mso-margin-top-alt:18.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#535353">tries to solve a problem that does not exist. -2s stick across patches and<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="mso-margin-top-alt:18.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#535353">tend to put off other reviewers.<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">[0] <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/041339.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/041339.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Kyle Mestery <<a href="mailto:mestery@mestery.com" target="_blank">mestery@mestery.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Yuriy Taraday <<a href="mailto:yorik.sar@gmail.com" target="_blank">yorik.sar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Kyle Mestery <<a href="mailto:mestery@mestery.com" target="_blank">mestery@mestery.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> and even less<br>
>> possibly rootwrap [3] if the security implications can be worked out.<br>
><br>
> Can you please provide some input on those security implications that are<br>
> not worked out yet?<br>
> I'm really surprised to see such comments in some ML thread not directly<br>
> related to the BP. Why is my spec blocked? Neither spec [1] nor code (which<br>
> is available for a really long time now [2] [3]) can get enough reviewers'<br>
> attention because of those groundless -2's. Should I abandon these change<br>
> requests and file new ones to get some eyes on my code and proposals? It's<br>
> just getting ridiculous. Let's take a look at timeline, shall we?<br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I share your concerns here as well, and I'm sorry you've had a bad<br>
experience working with the community here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
> Mar, 25 - first version of the first part of Neutron code is published at<br>
> [2]<br>
> Mar, 28 - first reviewers come and it gets -1'd by Mark because of lack of<br>
> BP (thankful it wasn't -2 yet, so reviews continued)<br>
> Apr, 1 - Both Oslo [5] and Neturon [6] BPs are created;<br>
> Apr, 2 - first version of the second part of Neutron code is published at<br>
> [3];<br>
> May, 16 - first version of Neutron spec is published at [1];<br>
> May, 19 - Neutron spec gets frozen by Mark's -2 (because Oslo BP is not<br>
> approved yet);<br>
> May, 21 - first part of Neutron code [2] is found generally OK by reviewers;<br>
> May, 21 - first version of Oslo spec is published at [4];<br>
> May, 29 - a version of the second part of Neutron code [3] is published that<br>
> later raises only minor comments by reviewers;<br>
> Jun, 5 - both parts of Neutron code [2] [3] get frozen by -2 from Mark<br>
> because BP isn't approved yet;<br>
> Jun, 23 - Oslo spec [4] is mostly ironed out;<br>
> Jul, 8 - Oslo spec [4] is merged, Neutron spec immediately gets +1 and +2;<br>
> Jul, 20 - SAD kicks in, no comments from Mark or anyone on blocked change<br>
> requests;<br>
> Jul, 24 - in response to Kyle's suggestion I'm filing SAD exception;<br>
> Jul, 31 - I'm getting final "decision" as follows: "Your BP will extremely<br>
> unlikely get to Juno".<br>
><br>
> Do you see what I see? Code and spec is mostly finished in May (!) where the<br>
> "mostly" part is lack of reviewers because of that Mark's -2. And 1 month<br>
> later when all bureaucratic reasons fall off nothing happens. Don't think I<br>
> didn't try to approach Mark. Don't think I didn't approach Kyle on this<br>
> issue. Because I did. But nothing happens and another month passes by and I<br>
> get "You know, may be later" general response. Noone (but those who knew<br>
> about it originally) even looks at my code for 2 months already because Mark<br>
> doesn't think (I hope he did think) he should lift -2 and I'm getting "why<br>
> not wait another 3 months?"<br>
><br>
> What the hell is that? You don't want to land features that doesn't have<br>
> code 2 weeks before Juno-3, I get that. My code has almost finished code by<br>
> 3.5 months before that! And you're considering to throw it to Kilo because<br>
> of some mystical issues that must've been covered in Oslo spec [4] and if<br>
> you like it they can be covered in Neutron spec [1] but you have to let<br>
> reviewers see it!<br>
><br>
> I don't think that Mark's actions (lack of them, actually) are what's<br>
> expected from core reviewer. No reaction to requests from developer whose<br>
> code got frozen by his -2. No reaction (at least no visible one) to PTL's<br>
> requests (and Kyle assured me he made those). Should we consider Mark<br>
> uncontrollable and unreachable? Why does he have -2 right in the first place<br>
> then? So how should I overcome his inaction? I can recreate new change<br>
> requests and hope he won't just -2 them with no comment at all. But that<br>
> would be just a sign of total failure of our shiny bureaucracy.<br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I have reached out a few times to Mark, and I'm not going to put words<br>
in his mouth here, but what I can say is that the Neutron Core team<br>
tries it's best to read all BPs and code which are submitted. In this<br>
particular case, there was some dropping of the balls in how we<br>
handled this. Carl has reached out to me a few times on this, and I've<br>
reached out to Mark as well to remove the -2 here. Sometimes, even<br>
with best intentions, things go awry.<br>
<br>
To move forward, there is interest in getting this feature upstream,<br>
maybe even in Juno. But given some concerns I've heard from Mark and<br>
now Thierry, maybe this does make sense to move to Kilo. I'll wait for<br>
Mark to reply on this thread and chime in here, as well as Thierry if<br>
he has more to say. Outside that, if Carl is willing to shepherd this<br>
and we can get Mark to reply, it's still possible we can get this into<br>
Juno.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Kyle<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
> [1] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/93889" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/93889</a> - Neutron spec<br>
> [2] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/82787" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/82787</a> - first part of Neutron code<br>
> [3] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/84667" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/84667</a> - second part of Neutron code<br>
> [4] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/94613" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/94613</a> - Oslo spec<br>
> [5] <a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/rootwrap-daemon-mode" target="_blank">
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/rootwrap-daemon-mode</a><br>
> [6] <a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/rootwrap-daemon-mode" target="_blank">
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/rootwrap-daemon-mode</a><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Kind regards, Yuriy.<br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>