Open Stack

On 18 June 2014 15:28, Matthew Booth <mbooth at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 18/06/14 13:31, Sean Dague wrote:
>> Even with 2 +2s you do the wrong thing. Yesterday we landed
>> baremetal tests that broke ironic. It has a ton of +1s from people
>> that have been working on those tests.
>
> This is slightly off topic, but think about that for a moment: the
> patch had a ton of peer review and 2 +2s from core reviewers, and it
> still broke. Review has significant benefits, but also a large cost,
> and it doesn't have all the answers. The answer is not always more
> review: there are other tools in the box. Imagine we spent 50% of the
> time we spend on review writing tempest tests instead.

Or we push the work off of core into the wider community and require
100% unit test coverage of every change *and* record the tempest
coverage of any changed lines so that the reviewer can gauge better
what the risks are?