Open Stack

Hi,
I am not sure that there is a good solution. I guess that we all need to 'vasbyt' (that is Afrikaans for bite the bullet) and wait for the code posted to be reviewed. In Neutron when we were heading towards the end of a cycle and there were a ton of BP's being added the PTL would ensure that there were at least two reviewer on each BP. This would address the problem in two ways:
1. Accountability for the review process in the critical time period
2. The coder was able to have a person that he/she could be in touch with. 
The above would enhance the cadence of the reviews.
I personally am spending a few hours a day reviewing code. I hope that it is helping move things forwards. A review not only means just looking at the code (there are some cases that it is simple), but it means running and testing the code. In some cases it is not possible to test (for example a Mellanox vif driver). 
In cases when a reviewer does not have an option to test the code would a tempest run help the reviewer with his/her decision?
Thanks and Alut a continua
Gary



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Walsh [mailto:sandy.walsh at rackspace.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 5:15 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Frustrations with review wait times
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/28/2013 10:58 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> >> So I'd like to throw two ideas into the mix.
> >>
> >> Firstly, consider having a rota - ideally 24x5 but that will need
> >> some more geographical coverage I suspect for many projects - of folk
> >> who spend a dedicated time period only reviewing.
> >
> > We have been doing that in the past for Nova, with little success. The
> > reason why "reviewday" is called "reviewday" is because... well...
> > there were review days.
> >
> > The wiki page was a bit eaten by the wiki conversion, but you can
> > still read it at:
> >
> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/ReviewDays
> >
> > In the end, a strict rotation didn't work out because people just
> > didn't review on their review day, but rather when they have one hour
> > free waiting for a patch to pass gate or whatever. In the end, the
> > rotation gave us way worse results than random ad-hoc reviewing,
> > because people would stop reviewing on days other than their review
> > day, and would regularly skip their review day altogether.
> >
> > Furthermore, there is some specialization going on: I prefer the two
> > Xen experts in nova-core to review one hour every two days rather than
> > one day every two weeks... because then Xen patches get better review
> > roundtrip times.
> >
> > So I'm not convinced *at all* that a reboot of this would yield better
> > results.
> 
> +1
> 
> That said, I think the reason my reviews dropped off from Nova was not
> having a dedicated day for it. But that was my fault, not the fault of the
> process. With Ceilometer, I try to set aside one fixed day a week for reviews
> (with moderate success ;)
> 
> 
> >> Launchpad [the
> >> project, not the site] did this with considerable success : every
> >> qualified reviewer committed to a time slot and didn't *try* to code
> >> - they focused on reviews.
> >
> > The key difference is that "every qualified reviewer" was employed by
> > the same company, and the review day was enforced by their
> management.
> > The amount of patches is also significantly lower, and there is less
> > specialization effect.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev