On 18 June 2014 15:28, Matthew Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/06/14 13:31, Sean Dague wrote: >> Even with 2 +2s you do the wrong thing. Yesterday we landed >> baremetal tests that broke ironic. It has a ton of +1s from people >> that have been working on those tests. > > This is slightly off topic, but think about that for a moment: the > patch had a ton of peer review and 2 +2s from core reviewers, and it > still broke. Review has significant benefits, but also a large cost, > and it doesn't have all the answers. The answer is not always more > review: there are other tools in the box. Imagine we spent 50% of the > time we spend on review writing tempest tests instead.
Or we push the work off of core into the wider community and require 100% unit test coverage of every change *and* record the tempest coverage of any changed lines so that the reviewer can gauge better what the risks are? _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
