Open Stack

What would be a good guideline for "timely manner"? I would recommend
something like 2-3 days unless the reviewer is on vacation or is
indisposed. Is it possible to update gerrit/jenkins to send reminders to
reviewers in such a scenario?

Regards,
Mandeep
-----




On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Mandeep Dhami <dhami at noironetworks.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful.
> >
> > Also, would it help the process by having some clear
> guidelines/expectations
> > around review time as well? In particular, if you have put a -1 or -2,
> and
> > the issues that you have identified have been addressed by an update (or
> at
> > least the original author thinks that he has addressed your concern), is
> it
> > reasonable to expect that you will re-review in a "reasonable time"? This
> > way, the updates can either proceed, or be rejected, as they are being
> > developed instead of accumulating in a backlog that we then try to get
> > approved on the last day of the cut-off?
> >
> I agree, if someone puts a -2 on a patch stressing an issue and the
> committer has resolved those issues, the -2 should also be resolved in
> a timely manner. If the issue can't be resolved in the review itself,
> as this wiki page [1] indicates, the issue should be moved to the
> mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CodeReviewGuidelines
>
> > Regards,
> > Mandeep
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com>
> >> > To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> >
> >> > On 07/24/2014 10:05 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
> >> > > Alan Kavanagh wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> If we have more work being put on the table, then more Core
> >> > >> members would definitely go a long way with assisting this, we cant
> >> > >> wait for folks to be reviewing stuff as an excuse to not get
> >> > >> features landed in a given release.
> >> >
> >> > We absolutely can and should wait for folks to be reviewing stuff
> >> > properly. A large number of problems in OpenStack code and flawed
> design
> >> > can be attributed to impatience and pushing through code that wasn't
> >> > ready.
> >> >
> >> > I've said this many times, but the best way to get core reviews on
> >> > patches that you submit is to put the effort into reviewing others'
> >> > code. Core reviewers are more willing to do reviews for someone who is
> >> > clearly trying to help the project in more ways than just pushing
> their
> >> > own code. Note that, Alan, I'm not trying to imply that you are guilty
> >> > of the above! :) I'm just recommending techniques for the general
> >> > contributor community who are not on a core team (including myself!).
> >>
> >> I agree with all of the above, I do think however there is another
> >> un-addressed area where there *may* be room for optimization - which is
> how
> >> we use the earlier milestones. I apologize in advance because this is
> >> somewhat tangential to Alan's points but I think it is relevant to the
> >> general frustration around what did/didn't get approved in time for the
> >> deadline and ultimately what will or wont get reviewed in time to make
> the
> >> release versus being punted to Kilo or even further down the road.
> >>
> >> We land very, very, little in terms of feature work in the *-1 and *-2
> >> milestones in each release (and this is not just a Neutron thing). Even
> >> though we know without a doubt that the amount of work currently
> approved
> >> for J-3 is not realistic we also know that we will land significantly
> more
> >> features in this milestone than the other two that have already been and
> >> gone, which to my way of thinking is actually kind of backwards to the
> ideal
> >> situation.
> >>
> >> What is unclear to me however is how much of this is a result of
> >> difficulty identifying and approving less controversial/more
> straightforward
> >> specifications quickly following summit (keeping in mind this time
> around
> >> there was arguably some additional delay as the *-specs repository
> approach
> >> was bedded down), an unavoidable result of human nature being to
> *really*
> >> push when there is a *hard* deadline to beat, or just that these earlier
> >> milestones are somewhat impacted from fatigue from the summit (I know a
> lot
> >> of people also try to take some well earned time off around this period
> + of
> >> course many are still concentrated on stabilization of the previous
> >> release). As a result it's unclear whether there is anything concrete
> that
> >> can be done to change this but I thought I would bring it up in case
> anyone
> >> else has any bright ideas!
> >>
> >> > [SNIP]
> >>
> >> > > We ought to (in my personal opinion) be supplying core reviewers to
> >> > > at least a couple of OpenStack projects. But one way or another we
> >> > > need to get more capabilities reviewed and merged. My personal top
> >> > > disappointments are with the current state of IPv6, HA, and QoS, but
> >> > > I'm sure other folks can list lots of other capabilities that
> >> > > they're really going to be frustrated to find lacking in Juno.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with you. It's not something that is fixable overnight, or by
> a
> >> > small group of people, IMO. It's something that needs to be addressed
> by
> >> > the core project teams, acting as a group in order to reduce review
> wait
> >> > times and ensure that there is responsiveness, transparency and
> >> > thoroughness to the review (code as well as spec) process.
> >> >
> >> > I put together some slides recently that have some insights and
> >> > (hopefully) some helpful suggestions for both doing and receiving code
> >> > reviews, as well as staying sane in the era of corporate agendas.
> >> > Perhaps folks will find it useful:
> >> >
> >> > http://bit.ly/navigating-openstack-community
> >>
> >> As an aside this is a very well put together deck, thanks for sharing!
> >>
> >> -Steve
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> 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/20140725/a18fc0d6/attachment.html>