Open Stack

On Oct 15, 2013, at 18:59 , Matt Riedemann <mriedem at us.ibm.com<mailto:mriedem at us.ibm.com>>
 wrote:

Sorry to pile on, but:

"this was not particularly the case for what our driver is concerned. As I already wrote, almost all the reviews so far have been related to unit tests or minor formal corrections."

As was pointed out by me in patch set 1 here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43592/

There was no unit test coverage for an entire module (nova.virt.hyperv.volumeops) before that patch.

So while I agree that driver maintainers know their code the best and how it all works with the dirty details, but they are also going to be the ones to cut corners to get things fixed which usually shows up in a lack of test coverage - and that's a good reason to have external reviewers on everything, to keep us all honest.


Let me add to this as an example this patch with a large number of additional unit tests that we decided to provide to improve our (already good) test coverage without external input:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/48940/

I agree on the fact that peer review is a fundamental part of the development process, as you were saying also to keep each other on track. But this is something that we can do among the driver team with or without the help of the Nova team, especially now that the Hyper-V community is growing up at a fast pace.



Thanks,

MATT RIEDEMANN
Advisory Software Engineer
Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development
________________________________

Phone: 1-507-253-7622 | Mobile: 1-507-990-1889
E-mail: mriedem at us.ibm.com<mailto:mriedem at us.ibm.com>
<Mail Attachment.gif>

3605 Hwy 52 N
Rochester, MN 55901-1407
United States






From:        Alessandro Pilotti <apilotti at cloudbasesolutions.com<mailto:apilotti at cloudbasesolutions.com>>
To:        OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>,
Date:        10/15/2013 10:39 AM
Subject:        Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
________________________________




On Oct 15, 2013, at 18:14 , Duncan Thomas <duncan.thomas at gmail.com<mailto:duncan.thomas at gmail.com>> wrote:

On 11 October 2013 15:41, Alessandro Pilotti
<apilotti at cloudbasesolutions.com<mailto:apilotti at cloudbasesolutions.com>> wrote:
Current reviews require:

+1 "de facto" driver X mantainer(s)
+2  core reviewer
+2A  core reviewer

While with the proposed scenario we'd get to a way faster route:

+2  driver X mantainer
+2A another driver X mantainer or a core reviewer

This would make a big difference in terms of review time.

Unfortunately I suspect it would also lead to a big difference in
review quality, and not in a positive way. The things that are
important / obvious to somebody who focuses on one driver are totally
different, and often far more limited, than the concerns of somebody
who reviews many drivers and core code changes.

Although the eyes of somebody which comes from a different domain bring usually additional points of views and befits, this was not particularly the case for what our driver is concerned. As I already wrote, almost all the reviews so far have been related to unit tests or minor formal corrections.

I disagree on the "far more limited": driver devs (at least in our case), have to work on a wider range of projects beside Nova (e.g.: Neutron, Cinder, Ceilometer and outside proper OpenStack OpenVSwitch and Crowbar, to name the most relevant cases).





--
Duncan Thomas

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131015/cd692751/attachment.html>