Open Stack

On 08/18/2015 03:33 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> Two weeks ago, I flagged the patch sets to commits ratio as the biggest
> problem that Fuel contributors to Puppet OpenStack should address, and
> over the past two weeks the situation has improved dramatically. In
> first and second week of August, 19 of our commits were merged in
> upstream, bringing our patch sets per commit ratio from 19 down to 5.6
> (while average for Puppet OpenStack during that period was 6.5). With
> the share of patch sets pushed by Fuel developers remaining at roughly
> the same level (15.9% vs 17.4%), I think it's safe to call this problem
> solved. Simply awesome!
> 
> Comparing last 30 days contribution stats vs same numbers two weeks ago:
> 
> Bogdan Dobrelia (#3 reviewer!): 67.2% -> 66.3% (disagreements 4.9% -> 3.6%)
> Denis Egorenko: 97% -> 87.5% (disagreements 12.1% -> 13.9%)
> Vasyl Saienko: 100% -> 96.4% (disagreements 16.7% -> 10.7%)
> Ivan Berezovskiy: 100% -> 92.3% (disagreements 0% -> 3.8%)
> Sergey Kolekonov: 91.7% -> 95.7% (disagreements 8.3% -> 13%)
> Max Yatsenko: n/a -> 100% (disagreements n/a -> 17.4%)
> Alex Schultz: 80% -> 80% (disagreements 20% -> 26.7%)
> Bartlomiej Piotrowski: n/a -> 100% (disagreements n/a -> 12.5%)
> Sergii Golovatiuk: 100% -> 100% (disagreements 33.3% -> 0%)
> 
> Bogdan continues to set the example and improve his numbers, which is
> not surprising considering that he's also the top reviewer in
> fuel-library. I think puppet-nova and puppet-neutron teams should
> seriously consider nominating him for core, he already tops reviewers
> lists for these modules.

http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=bogdando&metric=marks

2 commits and 16 LOC in our Puppet modules is in my opinion not enough
to promote him core reviewer today.
Though he's making good progress on reviews, we also need to read how he
write code in our am upstremodules, and not in Fuel Library.


> Denis, Vasyl, and Ivan are not there yet, but they all have noticeably
> increased both number and quality of their reviews, keep it up guys!
> 
> Numbers for other top reviewers are uneven and small enough for noise to
> overtake meaningful data, all I can recommend here is to watch your
> disagreements and learn from them. A ratio above 10% can mean one of
> three things: 1) you're not doing enough reviews so even a handful of
> disagreements sticks out -- do more reviews and this will improve on its
> own; 2) you're missing problems with the code that other reviewers find
> unacceptable -- try to be more attentive and watch for the things that
> you've been missing; 3) you disagree with majority on how some things
> should be done -- discuss your differences on IRC or ML and figure out a
> consensus.
> 
> Moving on to other numbers, weekly IRC meetings participation remains
> good:
> 
> Aug-4: 4 of 15 participants, 22 of 162 lines
> Aug-11: 6 of 16 participants, 62 of 192 lines
> 
> Unfortunately it's not all roses and unicorns, last week I flagged a
> stuck review that I think has been mishandled by Puppet OpenStack team
> [0][1], and it still remains in the same state.
> 
> [0] https://review.openstack.org/198695
> [1]
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/puppet_openstack/2015/puppet_openstack.2015-08-11-15.00.log.html#l-140
> 
> 
> On July 8, patch set 2 has passed CI. It received 2 +1 votes from other
> Fuel developers on July 10 and 29, but remained ignored by upstream
> reviewers until August 10, more than a month after the current patch set
> was posted. Then, a Swift core reviewer left a -1 disagreeing with the
> intent of the patch, and even though patch author posted a rebuttal a
> day later, the patch remains stuck and untouched for yet another week.
> 
> It's a one-off case that does not outweigh the positive trends I've
> outlined above, but even one stuck patch that fixes a critical bug is
> enough to justify a fork.
> 
> Speaking of forks, we managed to un-fork 9 upstream modules [2] with
> puppet-librarian-simple before Fuel 7.0 soft code freeze has kicked in.
> 
> [2]
> https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-library/blob/master/deployment/Puppetfile
> 
> 
> That's 9 times more than my conservative estimate of converting at least
> 1 module to librarian in 7.0, but these were the easiest and least
> deviated from upstream. We've still got 50 more modules to convert in
> Fuel 8.0, many will require commits to be merged in upstream before they
> can be completely un-forked. Having such commits wait for a month at a
> time only to be summarily rejected puts this effort at risk, lets figure
> out what went wrong this time and come up with a way to prevent this
> from happening again.
> 
> Thanks,
> 

From a general perspective, it's clear Fuel people is making good
progress to be involved in Puppet OpenStack group, and we can be proud
of our recent discussions that lead us to this state now.

Promoting people to the core team is another story and it will come
naturally like it has been done for other people, I think you need to
continue to show that efforts are consistent and good stuffs will
probably happen.

Obviously, this discussion is open and maybe someone else from our core
group have other thoughts, in that case I would be happy to read them.
-- 
Emilien Macchi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150819/810a20b2/attachment.pgp>