[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal

Macdonald-Wallace, Matthew matthew.macdonald-wallace at hp.com
Wed Jul 23 14:35:55 UTC 2014


So given the increased complexity of a spec, why not make it 2 specs per week?

Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Nemec [mailto:openstack at nemebean.com]
> Sent: 23 July 2014 14:21
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal
> 
> For everyone's reference, the tripleo-specs stats can be found here:
> http://www.nemebean.com/reviewstats/tripleo-specs-30.txt
> 
> Note that looking at the stats, over 30 days 1 review per week is only 4, which
> most of our cores are already doing anyway.  I'm not sure codifying a
> requirement to do at least that is going to help much.  To move the needle I'm
> thinking we would need at least 3 - most of our cores aren't meeting that today
> so it would actually require everyone to do more reviews.  Spec reviews are
> difficult and tend to take a significant amount of time, so that would be a
> considerable increase in time commitments for cores.  I'm not sure how I feel
> about that, although I'm probably biased because I'm not at 3 per week right
> now.
> :-)
> 
> -Ben
> 
> On 2014-07-22 15:18, Jay Dobies wrote:
> > At the meetup today, the topic of our spec process came up. The
> > general sentiment is that the process is still young and the hiccups
> > are expected, but we do need to get better about making sure we're
> > staying on top of them.
> >
> > As a first step, it was proposed to add 1 spec review a week to the
> > existing 3 reviews per day requirement for cores.
> >
> > Additionally, we're going to start to capture and review the metrics
> > on spec patches specifically during the weekly meeting. That should
> > help bring to light how long reviews are sitting in the queue without
> > being touched.
> >
> > What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week
> > requirement for cores?
> >
> > Not surprisingly, I'm +1 for it  :)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > 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
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list