Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Nova] Specs and approvals
I was on vacation last week and am late to the discussion, but I'm +1 for the idea. On 08/19/2014 02:08 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: 19:46:34 lifeless so I propose that +2 on a spec is a commitment to review it over-and-above the core review responsibilities 19:47:05 lifeless if its not important enough for a reviewer to do that thats a pretty strong signal 19:47:06 dprince lifeless: +1, I thought we already agreed to that at the meetup 19:47:17 slagle yea, sounds fine to me 19:47:20 bnemec +1 19:47:30 lifeless dprince: it wasn't clear whether it was part-of-responsibility, or additive, I'm proposing we make it clearly additive 19:47:52 lifeless and separately I think we need to make surfacing reviews-for-themes a lot better That is - +1 on a spec review is 'sure, I like it', +2 is specifically I will review this *over and above* my core commitment - the goal here is to have some very gentle choke on concurrent WIP without needing the transition to a managed pull workflow that Nova are discussing - which we didn't have much support for during the meeting. Obviously, any core can -2 for any of the usual reasons - this motion is about opening up +A to the whole Tripleo core team on specs. Reviewers, and other interested kibbitzers, please +1 / -1 as you feel fit :) +1 I really like this. In fact, I like it a lot more than the current proposal for Nova. I think the Nova team should consider this, as well. Nova and tripleo are at different points in there lifecycle just look at tripleo-specs [0] vs nova-specs [1]. TripleO has 11 specs and nova has 80+, TripleO has 22 cores and nova has 21 cores. AFAIK none of the tripleo specs are vendor specific, while a good chunk of nova ones are. I don't think there is a one size fits all solution here. [0] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/tripleo-specs/ [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/ It still rate limits code reviews by making core reviewers explicitly commit to reviewing things. This is like our previous attempt at sponsoring blueprints, but the use of gerrit I think would make it more successful. It also addresses my primary concerns with the tensions between group will and small groups no longer being able to self organize and push things to completion without having to haggle through yet another process. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Nova] Specs and approvals
On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: 19:46:34 lifeless so I propose that +2 on a spec is a commitment to review it over-and-above the core review responsibilities 19:47:05 lifeless if its not important enough for a reviewer to do that thats a pretty strong signal 19:47:06 dprince lifeless: +1, I thought we already agreed to that at the meetup 19:47:17 slagle yea, sounds fine to me 19:47:20 bnemec +1 19:47:30 lifeless dprince: it wasn't clear whether it was part-of-responsibility, or additive, I'm proposing we make it clearly additive 19:47:52 lifeless and separately I think we need to make surfacing reviews-for-themes a lot better That is - +1 on a spec review is 'sure, I like it', +2 is specifically I will review this *over and above* my core commitment - the goal here is to have some very gentle choke on concurrent WIP without needing the transition to a managed pull workflow that Nova are discussing - which we didn't have much support for during the meeting. Obviously, any core can -2 for any of the usual reasons - this motion is about opening up +A to the whole Tripleo core team on specs. Reviewers, and other interested kibbitzers, please +1 / -1 as you feel fit :) +1 I really like this. In fact, I like it a lot more than the current proposal for Nova. I think the Nova team should consider this, as well. It still rate limits code reviews by making core reviewers explicitly commit to reviewing things. This is like our previous attempt at sponsoring blueprints, but the use of gerrit I think would make it more successful. It also addresses my primary concerns with the tensions between group will and small groups no longer being able to self organize and push things to completion without having to haggle through yet another process. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Nova] Specs and approvals
On 08/19/2014 11:23 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: 19:46:34 lifeless so I propose that +2 on a spec is a commitment to review it over-and-above the core review responsibilities 19:47:05 lifeless if its not important enough for a reviewer to do that thats a pretty strong signal 19:47:06 dprince lifeless: +1, I thought we already agreed to that at the meetup 19:47:17 slagle yea, sounds fine to me 19:47:20 bnemec +1 19:47:30 lifeless dprince: it wasn't clear whether it was part-of-responsibility, or additive, I'm proposing we make it clearly additive 19:47:52 lifeless and separately I think we need to make surfacing reviews-for-themes a lot better That is - +1 on a spec review is 'sure, I like it', +2 is specifically I will review this *over and above* my core commitment - the goal here is to have some very gentle choke on concurrent WIP without needing the transition to a managed pull workflow that Nova are discussing - which we didn't have much support for during the meeting. Obviously, any core can -2 for any of the usual reasons - this motion is about opening up +A to the whole Tripleo core team on specs. Reviewers, and other interested kibbitzers, please +1 / -1 as you feel fit :) +1 I really like this. In fact, I like it a lot more than the current proposal for Nova. I think the Nova team should consider this, as well. It still rate limits code reviews by making core reviewers explicitly commit to reviewing things. This is like our previous attempt at sponsoring blueprints, but the use of gerrit I think would make it more successful. It also addresses my primary concerns with the tensions between group will and small groups no longer being able to self organize and push things to completion without having to haggle through yet another process. +1 Me likee. -jay ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Nova] Specs and approvals
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: 19:46:34 lifeless so I propose that +2 on a spec is a commitment to review it over-and-above the core review responsibilities 19:47:05 lifeless if its not important enough for a reviewer to do that thats a pretty strong signal 19:47:06 dprince lifeless: +1, I thought we already agreed to that at the meetup 19:47:17 slagle yea, sounds fine to me 19:47:20 bnemec +1 19:47:30 lifeless dprince: it wasn't clear whether it was part-of-responsibility, or additive, I'm proposing we make it clearly additive 19:47:52 lifeless and separately I think we need to make surfacing reviews-for-themes a lot better That is - +1 on a spec review is 'sure, I like it', +2 is specifically I will review this *over and above* my core commitment - the goal here is to have some very gentle choke on concurrent WIP without needing the transition to a managed pull workflow that Nova are discussing - which we didn't have much support for during the meeting. Obviously, any core can -2 for any of the usual reasons - this motion is about opening up +A to the whole Tripleo core team on specs. Reviewers, and other interested kibbitzers, please +1 / -1 as you feel fit :) +1 I really like this. In fact, I like it a lot more than the current proposal for Nova. I think the Nova team should consider this, as well. Nova and tripleo are at different points in there lifecycle just look at tripleo-specs [0] vs nova-specs [1]. TripleO has 11 specs and nova has 80+, TripleO has 22 cores and nova has 21 cores. AFAIK none of the tripleo specs are vendor specific, while a good chunk of nova ones are. I don't think there is a one size fits all solution here. [0] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/tripleo-specs/ [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/ It still rate limits code reviews by making core reviewers explicitly commit to reviewing things. This is like our previous attempt at sponsoring blueprints, but the use of gerrit I think would make it more successful. It also addresses my primary concerns with the tensions between group will and small groups no longer being able to self organize and push things to completion without having to haggle through yet another process. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
