What would be a good guideline for "timely manner"? I would recommend something like 2-3 days unless the reviewer is on vacation or is indisposed. Is it possible to update gerrit/jenkins to send reminders to reviewers in such a scenario?
Regards, Mandeep ----- On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Kyle Mestery <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Mandeep Dhami <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful. > > > > Also, would it help the process by having some clear > guidelines/expectations > > around review time as well? In particular, if you have put a -1 or -2, > and > > the issues that you have identified have been addressed by an update (or > at > > least the original author thinks that he has addressed your concern), is > it > > reasonable to expect that you will re-review in a "reasonable time"? This > > way, the updates can either proceed, or be rejected, as they are being > > developed instead of accumulating in a backlog that we then try to get > > approved on the last day of the cut-off? > > > I agree, if someone puts a -2 on a patch stressing an issue and the > committer has resolved those issues, the -2 should also be resolved in > a timely manner. If the issue can't be resolved in the review itself, > as this wiki page [1] indicates, the issue should be moved to the > mailing list. > > Thanks, > Kyle > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CodeReviewGuidelines > > > Regards, > > Mandeep > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Steve Gordon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Jay Pipes" <[email protected]> > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > > >> > On 07/24/2014 10:05 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote: > >> > > Alan Kavanagh wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> If we have more work being put on the table, then more Core > >> > >> members would definitely go a long way with assisting this, we cant > >> > >> wait for folks to be reviewing stuff as an excuse to not get > >> > >> features landed in a given release. > >> > > >> > We absolutely can and should wait for folks to be reviewing stuff > >> > properly. A large number of problems in OpenStack code and flawed > design > >> > can be attributed to impatience and pushing through code that wasn't > >> > ready. > >> > > >> > I've said this many times, but the best way to get core reviews on > >> > patches that you submit is to put the effort into reviewing others' > >> > code. Core reviewers are more willing to do reviews for someone who is > >> > clearly trying to help the project in more ways than just pushing > their > >> > own code. Note that, Alan, I'm not trying to imply that you are guilty > >> > of the above! :) I'm just recommending techniques for the general > >> > contributor community who are not on a core team (including myself!). > >> > >> I agree with all of the above, I do think however there is another > >> un-addressed area where there *may* be room for optimization - which is > how > >> we use the earlier milestones. I apologize in advance because this is > >> somewhat tangential to Alan's points but I think it is relevant to the > >> general frustration around what did/didn't get approved in time for the > >> deadline and ultimately what will or wont get reviewed in time to make > the > >> release versus being punted to Kilo or even further down the road. > >> > >> We land very, very, little in terms of feature work in the *-1 and *-2 > >> milestones in each release (and this is not just a Neutron thing). Even > >> though we know without a doubt that the amount of work currently > approved > >> for J-3 is not realistic we also know that we will land significantly > more > >> features in this milestone than the other two that have already been and > >> gone, which to my way of thinking is actually kind of backwards to the > ideal > >> situation. > >> > >> What is unclear to me however is how much of this is a result of > >> difficulty identifying and approving less controversial/more > straightforward > >> specifications quickly following summit (keeping in mind this time > around > >> there was arguably some additional delay as the *-specs repository > approach > >> was bedded down), an unavoidable result of human nature being to > *really* > >> push when there is a *hard* deadline to beat, or just that these earlier > >> milestones are somewhat impacted from fatigue from the summit (I know a > lot > >> of people also try to take some well earned time off around this period > + of > >> course many are still concentrated on stabilization of the previous > >> release). As a result it's unclear whether there is anything concrete > that > >> can be done to change this but I thought I would bring it up in case > anyone > >> else has any bright ideas! > >> > >> > [SNIP] > >> > >> > > We ought to (in my personal opinion) be supplying core reviewers to > >> > > at least a couple of OpenStack projects. But one way or another we > >> > > need to get more capabilities reviewed and merged. My personal top > >> > > disappointments are with the current state of IPv6, HA, and QoS, but > >> > > I'm sure other folks can list lots of other capabilities that > >> > > they're really going to be frustrated to find lacking in Juno. > >> > > >> > I agree with you. It's not something that is fixable overnight, or by > a > >> > small group of people, IMO. It's something that needs to be addressed > by > >> > the core project teams, acting as a group in order to reduce review > wait > >> > times and ensure that there is responsiveness, transparency and > >> > thoroughness to the review (code as well as spec) process. > >> > > >> > I put together some slides recently that have some insights and > >> > (hopefully) some helpful suggestions for both doing and receiving code > >> > reviews, as well as staying sane in the era of corporate agendas. > >> > Perhaps folks will find it useful: > >> > > >> > http://bit.ly/navigating-openstack-community > >> > >> As an aside this is a very well put together deck, thanks for sharing! > >> > >> -Steve > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
