Open Stack

On 13/02/15 14:17 +0000, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
>Hi Boris,
>
> 
>
>Thanks for your input. I do like the idea of picking up the changes that have
>not been active. Do you have resources in mind to dedicate for this?
>
> 
>
>My personal take is that if some piece of work has not been touched for a
>month, it’s probably not that important after all and the community should use
>the resources to do some work that has actual momentum. The changes itself will
>not disappear the owner is still able to revive it if felt that there is right
>time to continue it. The cleanup will just make it easier for people to focus
>on things that are actually moving. It also will make bug tracking bit easier
>when one will see on the bug report that the patch got abandoned due to
>inactivity and indicates that the owner of that bug might not be working on it
>after all.

I agree the above holds most of the times. However, I think we should
add one more step to the bullets you mentioned in your previous email.
That is, taking a good look to the review and understanding if it'd be
worth taking it over.

Some reviews are stalled on minor fixes/rebases. It'd be a shame to
abandon a patch that would be a good fix for a bug based on a missing
rebase.

Flavio

>
> 
>
>-          Erno
>
> 
>
>From: Boris Pavlovic [mailto:bpavlovic at mirantis.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 1:25 PM
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Cleanout of inactive change proposals
>from review
>
> 
>
>Hi,
>
> 
>
>I believe that keeping review queue clean is the great idea. 
>
>But I am not sure that set of these rules is enough to abandon patches.
>
> 
>
>Recently I wrote blogpost related to making OpenStack community more user
>friendly:
>
>http://boris-42.me/thoughts-on-making-openstack-community-more-user-friendly/
>
> 
>
>tl;dr;
>
> 
>
>Patches on review are great source of information what is missing in project.
>
>Removing them from queue means losing this essential information. The result
>
>of such actions is that project doesn't face users requirements which is quite
>bad...
>
> 
>
>What if that project team continue work on all "abandoned" patches  that are
>covering 
>
>valid use cases and finish them?
>
> 
>
>Best regards,
>
>Boris Pavlovic 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>    On 13/02/15 11:06 +0000, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
>
>        Hi all,
>
>        We have almost year old (from last update) reviews still in the queue
>        for
>        glance. The discussion was initiated on yesterday’s meeting for
>        adopting
>        abandon policy for stale changes.
>
>        The documentation can be found from https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/
>        glance-cleanout-of-inactive-PS and any input would be appreciated. For
>        your
>        convenience current state below:
>
>
>    Thanks for putting this together. I missed the meeting yday and this
>    is important.
>
>        Glance - Cleanout of inactive change proposals from review
>
>
>        We Should start cleaning out our review list to keep the focus on
>        changes that
>        has momentum. Nova is currently abandoning change proposals that has
>        been
>        inactive for 4 weeks.
>
>
>
>        Proposed action (if all of the following is True, abandon the PS):
>
>        1. The PS has -1/-2 (including Jenkins)
>
>
>    I assume you're talking about voting -1/-2 and not Workflow, right?
>    (you said jenkins afterall but just for the sake of clarity).
>
>        2. The change is proposed to glance, glance_store or
>        python-glanceclient;
>           specs should not be abandoned as their workflow is much slower
>
>        3. No activity for 28 days from Author/Owner after the -1/-2
>
>
>    I'd reword this in "No activity". This includes comments, feedback,
>    discussions and or other committers taking over a patch.
>
>        4. There has been  query made to the owner to update the patch between
>        5 and
>           10 days  before abandoning (comment on PS/Bug or something similar)
>
>         ● Let's be smart on this. Flexibility is good on holiday seasons,
>        during
>           feature freeze, etc.
>
>
>    +2 to the above, I like it.
>
>    Thanks again,
>    Flavio
>
>    --
>    @flaper87
>    Flavio Percoco
>   
>    __________________________________________________________________________
>    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
>
> 
>

>__________________________________________________________________________
>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


-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150213/1ca42a9d/attachment.pgp>