Open Stack

Le 4 août 2015 13:18, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> +1 to "pushing for is creating Nova subteams with their own core
> reviewers, which would be experts and trusted to +2 on a defined
> subset of code."
>
> Oslo has cores who can +2 any of the oslo libraries and each Oslo
> library has its own cores as well. We tend to elevate karma quickly
> for cores between libraries and from library core to the main core. So
> this is working well and could be something Nova can adopt. (oslo
> library == nova sub team).
>
> I used to think that subteam +2 karma with informal boundaries may be
> better, but nova cores may be more comfortable with explicit
> boundaries and karma elevation.
>
> ...But anything is better than status quo!
>
> Thanks,
> dims
>

Well, we already tried to create subteams in Liberty, so please make sure
it's not something on status quo.

That said, it's understandable that delegating trust to subteams doesn't
necessarily resolve the problem and actually proxies that to the
trustability within the team.

Are all the subteam members trusting them together ? Can we assume that we
can scale ? What could be the acceptance criterias for being a subteam
member ? How can we identify that level of acceptance ? See, there are
still unresolved questions, hence my call for waiting Tokyo on that.

-Sylvain

>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
wrote:
> > John Garbutt wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Personally I find a mix of coding and reviewing good to keep a decent
> >> level of empathy and sanity. I don't have time for any coding this
> >> release (only a bit of documenting), and its not something I can
> >> honestly recommend as a best practice. If people don't maintain a good
> >> level of reviews, we do tend to drop those folks from nova-core.
> >>
> >> I know ttx has been pushing for dedicated reviewers. It would be nice
> >> to find folks that can do that, but we just haven't found any of those
> >> people to date.
> >
> > Hell no! I'd hate dedicated reviewers.
> >
> > I want everyone to be a reviewer and a commit author. It's the only way
> > to keep current on the code and relevant enough to be trusted for the
> > final +2s.
> >
> > The trick is that given how wide and diverse Nova's code is, it's
> > impossible to be a reviewer / commit author / expert in all the Nova
> > things. If you slowly grew with Nova over the past years, you may have a
> > good grasp of most parts. But for newcomers, it's an impossible mountain
> > to climb, and they prefer to go to smaller projects. And as we burn out
> > old people with a giant set of reviews, we fail to replace them with new
> > blood.
> >
> > This is why I advocate dividing code / reviewers / expertise along
> > smaller areas within Nova, so that new people can focus and become a
> > master again. What I'm pushing for is creating Nova subteams with their
> > own core reviewers, which would be experts and trusted to +2 on a
> > defined subset of code.
> >
> > --
> > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >
> >
__________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20150804/ca60e921/attachment.html>