Hi, On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Yair Fried <yfr...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > Suggestion: Please consider tagging your Tempest commit messages the same way > you do your mails in the mailing list > > Explanation: Since tempest is a single project testing multiple Openstack > project we have a very diverse collection of patches as well as reviewers. > Tagging our commit messages will allow us to classify patches and thus: > 1. Allow reviewer to focus on patches related to their area of expertise > 2. Track "trends" in patches - I think we all know that we lack in Neutron > testing for example, but can we assess how many network related patches are > for awaiting review > 3. Future automation of flagging "interesting" patches > > You can usually tell all of this from reviewing the patch, but by then - > you've spent time on a patch you might not even be qualified to review. > I suggest we tag our patches with, to start with, the components we are > looking to test, and the type of test (sceanrio, api, ...) and that reviewers > should -1 untagged patches. > > I think the tagging should be the 2nd line in the message: > > ====================================== > Example commit message > > [Neutron][Nova][Network][Scenario] > > Explanation of how this scenario tests both Neutron and Nova > Network performance > > Chang-id XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > ======================================= > > I would like this to start immediately but what do you guys think?
+1 And, how about do we the tagging about the services in the subject(1st line)? For example: Neutron:Example commit subject Because the dashboard of the gerrit shows the subject only now. I think reviewers can find "interesting" patches easily if the dashboard shows the tags. This is not so strong opinion because some scenario tests may have several services tags. -- Masayuki Igawa _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
