Open Stack

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:33 PM, melanie witt <melwittt at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> Howdy everyone,
> 
> We've been experimenting with a new process this cycle, Review 
> Runways [1] and we're about at the middle of the cycle now as we had 
> the r-2 milestone last week June 7.
> 
> I wanted to start a thread and gather thoughts and feedback from the 
> nova community about how they think runways have been working or not 
> working and lend any suggestions to change or improve as we continue 
> on in the rocky cycle.
> 
> We decided to try the runways process to increase the chances of core 
> reviewers converging on the same changes and thus increasing reviews 
> and merges on approved blueprint work. As of today, we have 69 
> blueprints approved and 28 blueprints completed, we just passed r-2 
> June 7 and r-3 is July 26 and rc1 is August 9 [2].
> 
> Do people feel like they've been receiving more review on their 
> blueprints? Does it seem like we're completing more blueprints 
> earlier? Is there feedback or suggestions for change that you can 
> share?

Looking at the Queens burndown chart from Matt [3] we had 11 completed 
bps at Queens milestone 2. So having 28 completed bps at R-2 means a 
really nice improvement on our bp completion rate. I think the runaways 
process contributed to this improvement.

Did runaway solve the problem that not every equally ready patch gets 
equal attention from reviewers? Clearly not. But I don't think this 
would be a realistic goal for runaways.

I suggest that in the future we continue the runaway process but we 
also revive the priority setting process. Before runaways we had 3-4 
bps agreed as priority work for a given cycle. I think we had this 3-4 
bps in our head for Rocky as well we just did not write them down. I 
feel this causes misunderstanding about priories, like:
a) does reviewer X has the same 3-4 bps in her/his head with priority 
as in mine?
b) does something that I think part of the 3-4 priority bps has more 
importance than what is in a runaway slot?

Of course when I select what to review priority is only a single factor 
and there are others, like:
* Do I have knowledge about the feature? (Did I review the related 
spec? Do I have knowledge in the domain or in the impacted code path?)
* Is it seems easy to review? (e.g. low complexity feature, small 
patches, well written commit message)
* Is it something that feels important to me, regardless of priority 
set by the community. (e.g. Do I get frequent company internal 
questions about the feature? Do I have another feature that depends on 
this feature as prerequisite work?)
So during the cycle it happened that I selected patches to review even 
if they wasn't in a runaway slot and ignored some patches from the 
runaway slots.

Cheers,
gibi

[3] 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRh5glbJ44-Ru2iARidNRa7uFfn2yjiRPjHIEQOc3Fjp5YDAlcMmXkYAEFW0WNhALl010T4rzyChuO9/pubhtml?gid=128173249&single=true

> 

> 
> Thanks all,
> -melanie
> 
> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-runways-rocky
> [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Rocky_Release_Schedule
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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