Open Stack

> While I have tried to review a few of the runway-slotted efforts, I
> have gotten burned out on a number of them. Other runway-slotted
> efforts, I simply don't care enough about or once I've seen some of
> the code, simply can't bring myself to review it (sorry, just being
> honest).

I have the same feeling, although I have reviewed a lot of things I
wouldn't have otherwise as a result of them being in the runway. I spent
a bunch of time early on with the image signing stuff, which I think was
worthwhile, although at this point I'm a bit worn out on it. That's not
the fault of runways though.

> Is your concern that placement stuff is getting unfair attention since
> many of the patch series aren't in the runways? Or is your concern
> that you'd like to see *more* core reviews on placement stuff outside
> of the usual placement-y core reviewers (you, me, Alex, Eric, Gibi and
> Dan)?

I think placement has been getting a bit of a free ride, with constant
review and insulation from the runway process. However, I don't think
that we can stop progress on that effort while we circle around, and the
subteam/group of people that focus on placement already has a lot of
supporting cores already. So, it's cheating a little bit, but we always
said that we're not going to tell cores *not* to review something unless
it is in a runway and pragmatially I think it's probably the right thing
to do for placement.

>> Having said that, it's clear from the list of things in the runways
>> etherpad that there are some lower priority efforts that have been
>> completed probably because they leveraged runways (there are a few
>> xenapi blueprints for example, and the powervm driver changes).
>
> Wasn't that kind of the point of the runways, though? To enable "lower
> priority" efforts to have a chance at getting reviews? Or are you just
> stating here the apparent success of that effort?

It was, and I think it has worked well for that for several things. The
image signing stuff got more review in its first runway slot than it has
in years I think.

Overall, I don't think we're worse off with runways than we were before
it. I think that some things that will get attention regardless are
still progressing. I think that some things that are far off on the
fringe are still getting ignored. I think that for the huge bulk of
things in the middle of those two, runways has helped focus review on
specific efforts and thus increased the throughput there. For a first
attempt, I'd call that a success.

I think maybe a little more monitoring of the review rate of things in
the runways and some gentle prodding of people to look at ones that are
burning time and not seeing much review would maybe improve things a
bit.

--Dan