Open Stack

> Hi, like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
> date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
> time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
> with -core responsibilities.
> 
> Please see Russell's excellent stats:
> http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-30.txt
> http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt
> 
> For joining and retaining core I look at the 90 day statistics; folk
> who are particularly low in the 30 day stats get a heads up: it's not
> a purely mechanical process :).
> 
> As we've just merged review teams with Tuskar devs, we need to allow
> some time for everyone to get up to speed; so for folk who are core as
> a result of the merge will be retained as core, but November I expect
> the stats will have normalised somewhat and that special handling
> won't be needed.
> 
> IMO these are the reviewers doing enough over 90 days to meet the
> requirements for core:
> 
> |       lifeless **        |     349    8 140   2 199    57.6% |    2
> (  1.0%)  |
> |     clint-fewbar **      |     329    2  54   1 272    83.0% |    7
> (  2.6%)  |
> |         cmsj **          |     248    1  25   1 221    89.5% |   13
> (  5.9%)  |
> |        derekh **         |      88    0  28  23  37    68.2% |    6
> ( 10.0%)  |
> 
> Who are already core, so thats easy.
> 
> If you are core, and not on that list, that may be because you're
> coming from tuskar, which doesn't have 90 days of history, or you need
> to get stuck into some more reviews :).
> 
> Now, 30 day history - this is the heads up for folk:
> 
> | clint-fewbar **  |     179    2  27   0 150    83.8% |    6 (  4.0%)  |
> |     cmsj **      |     179    1  15   0 163    91.1% |   11 (  6.7%)  |
> |   lifeless **    |     129    3  39   2  85    67.4% |    2 (  2.3%)  |
> |    derekh **     |      41    0  11   0  30    73.2% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
> |      slagle      |      37    0  11  26   0    70.3% |    3 ( 11.5%)  |
> |    ghe.rivero    |      28    0   4  24   0    85.7% |    2 (  8.3%)  |
> 
> 
> I'm using the fairly simple metric of 'average at least one review a
> day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of
> the code to be an effective reviewer'. James and Ghe, good stuff -
> you're well on your way to core. If you're not in that list, please
> treat this as a heads-up that you need to do more reviews to keep on
> top of what's going on, whether so you become core, or you keep it.
> 
> In next month's update I'll review whether to remove some folk that
> aren't keeping on top of things, as it won't be a surprise :).
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 

Hi,

I feel like I should point out that before tuskar merged with tripleo, we had some distinction between the team working on the tuskar api and the team working on the UI, with each team focusing reviews on its particular experties.  The latter team works quite closely with horizon, to the extent of spending a lot of time involved with horizon development and blueprints.  This is done so that horizon changes can be understood and utilized by tuskar-ui.

For that reason, I feel like a UI core reviewer split here might make sense. . . ?  tuskar-ui doesn't require as many updates as tripleo/tuskar api, but a certain level of horizon and UI expertise is definitely helpful in reviewing the UI patches.

Thanks,
Tzu-Mainn Chen