Open Stack

On Thu, 2023-04-20 at 16:45 +0530, Rajat Dhasmana wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was discussing this with Stephen last cycle. The general idea we discussed
> to review project specific patches was:
> 1 core from project team to verify the functionality of the patch is as
> intended
> 1 core from SDK team to verify the code follows all the conventions of SDK/OSC
> project

Just to add, I personally expect this to be a temporary state of affairs. Once
folks have a "feel" for how things are expected to work in SDK and OSC, project
teams should be able to manage their own destiny. As I've said before, I have
enough jobs and I don't want to add "gatekeeping" to that list :)

> This will ensure we are following proper convention (like how a specific
> command should be written) and the change
> we are adding works as expected (calling the right API, accepting/passing the
> right parameters etc)
> 
> On a similar note, Cinder team would also like to nominate its team member(s)
> for the core position in OSC/SDK.
> Last cycle, most (if not all) of my changes were reviewed by Stephen and I
> don't want to put more burden on
> him for the SDK work I'm planning. :)
> Let me know about the feasibility of that request and I can initiate a
> discussion in the Cinder upstream meeting for the
> interested candidate(s).

Artem will know more but it sounds like these we'll be adding the core teams for
all services to openstacksdk-service-core and openstackclient-service-core, so
this will happen then.

Stephen

> 
> Thanks
> Rajat Dhasmana
> 
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 4:21 PM Abhishek Kekane <akekane at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:33 PM Artem Goncharov <artem.goncharov at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have not forgotten and I am on it. However I see that there are too many
> > > people in the core group right now from most of which I have not ever a
> > > single review. This is becoming a bit too dangerous and I have requested
> > > arranging a new group (openstacksdk-service-core and openstackclient-
> > > service-core) with only +2 privileges to prevent workflow misuse [1].
> > > 
> > > Once this is done I will immediately add mentioned members into the group.
> > > 
> > > In the meanwhile I also wanted to hint that there are currently changes
> > > for the glance in openstackclient open (well, only 1 open left) and the
> > > people mentioned by you are so far not doing code reviews.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Artem,
> > 
> > Thanks for pointing it out, the one open is WIP i guess, sorry we didn't
> > notice it earlier. This PTG we decided to dedicate particular resources on
> >  reviewing the glance specific patches. So once new patches are up then you
> > will definitely find reviews from our side on priority basis.
> > 
> > @Pranali, please make sure when a patch is submitted the owner adds us as a
> > reviewer to the patches so that we will get immediate notification about the
> > same.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Abhishek
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Artem
> > > 
> > > [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/880933
> > > 
> > > > On 19. Apr 2023, at 12:54, Pranali Deore <pdeore at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 6:52 PM Pranali Deore <pdeore at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 12:57 PM Artem Goncharov
> > > > > <artem.goncharov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Feedback from SDK/OSC team on one item that got my attention
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > # Bridge gap between Glance client and OSC
> > > > > > > Last cycle we have prepared the list of missing commands [2] and
> > > > > > > started submitting patches to implement the same. Our biggest
> > > > > > > hurdle at the moment is lack of reviews from the osc team (which
> > > > > > > has only one/two cores). Glance PTL is going to communicate with
> > > > > > > TC/existing core(s) of OSC whether they can add any glance core to
> > > > > > > the team so that we can prioritize our work and get reviews
> > > > > > > immediately. This cycle we are planning to complete this work. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > At the moment SDK/CLI core group is having 27 members, which should
> > > > > > be already a sign. We have an agreement with all teams and add
> > > > > > certain members into the core group to be able to review changes for
> > > > > > their corresponding services (with a limitation that they are NOT by
> > > > > > default setting W+1).
> > > > > > You have noticed pretty correct - at the moment there is not so much
> > > > > > activity on our side due to lack of reviewers. But that is not
> > > > > > blocking any change once there is a +2 review from the service
> > > > > > representatives. That means that if Glance team opens change and
> > > > > > another Glance team member leaves +2 those changes are having
> > > > > > absolutely different priority and we normally approving them fast
> > > > > > (unless there is something preventing that). What we want to prevent
> > > > > > is that every team is pulling project into their direction breaking
> > > > > > certain rules or conventions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please provide me the list of members you would like to get SDK/CLI
> > > > > > core rights and I would gladly add them (one more time - no
> > > > > > workflow+1)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Artem
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Artem,
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have the discussion in the team and Abhishek & Cyril are ready to
> > > > > join the SDK/CLI core group to speed up the reviews on glance related
> > > > > changes.
> > > > > Please provide the SDK/CLI core rights to @Abhishek Kekane & @Cyril
> > > > > Roelandt.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Artem,
> > > > 
> > > > Any updates on adding the glance team members to SDK/CLI core group?
> > > > Kindly please let us know once you add them. 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Pranali
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Pranali Deore 
> > > 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230420/e653f28b/attachment-0001.htm>