Le 08/09/2014 18:06, Steven Dake a écrit :
On 09/05/2014 06:10 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Interesting idea, but having been core on Heat for ~2 years, it is
critical to be involved in the review from the beginning of the patch
set. Typically you won't see core reviewer's participate in a review
that is already being handled by two core reviewers.
Le 05/09/2014 12:48, Sean Dague a écrit :
On 09/05/2014 03:02 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
I don't really understand how the half core idea works outside of a
Le 05/09/2014 01:22, Michael Still a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
[Heavy snipping because of length]
I think this is the crux of the matter. We're not doing a great
The radical (?) solution to the nova core team bottleneck is thus to
follow this lead and split the nova virt drivers out into separate
projects and delegate their maintainence to new dedicated teams.
- Nova becomes the home for the public APIs, RPC system, database
persistent and the glue that ties all this together with the
virt driver API.
- Each virt driver project gets its own core team and is
for dealing with review, merge & release of their codebase.
landing code at the moment, because we can't keep up with the review
So far we've had two proposals mooted:
- slots / runways, where we try to rate limit the number of things
we're trying to review at once to maintain focus
- splitting all the virt drivers out of the nova tree
Ahem, IIRC, there is a third proposal for Kilo :
- create subteam's half-cores responsible for reviewing patch's
iterations and send to cores approvals requests once they consider the
patch enough stable for it.
As I explained, it would allow to free up reviewing time for cores
without loosing the control over what is being merged.
equation, because the point is in core is to have trust over the
judgement of your fellow core members so that they can land code when
you aren't looking. I'm not sure how I manage to build up half trust in
someone any quicker.
Well, this thread is becoming huge so that's becoming hard to follow
all the discussion but I explained the idea elsewhere. Let me just
provide it here too :
The idea is *not* to land patches by the halfcores. Core team will
still be fully responsible for approving patches. The main problem in
Nova is that cores are spending lots of time because they review each
iteration of a patch, and also have to look at if a patch is good or
That's really time consuming, and for most of the time, quite
frustrating as it requires to follow the patch's life, so there are
high risks that your core attention is becoming distracted over the
life of the patch.
Here, the idea is to reduce dramatically this time by having teams
dedicated to specific areas (as it's already done anyway for the
various majority of reviewers) who could on their own take time for
reviewing all the iterations. Of course, that doesn't mean cores
would loose the possibility to specifically follow a patch and bypass
the halfcores, that's just for helping them if they're overwhelmed.
About the question of trusting cores or halfcores, I can just say
that Nova team is anyway needing to grow up or divide it so the
trusting delegation has to be real anyway.
This whole process is IMHO very encouraging for newcomers because
that creates dedicated teams that could help them to improve their
changes, and not waiting 2 months for getting a -1 and a frank reply.
The reason it is important from the beginning of the change request is
that the project core can store the iterations and purpose of the
change in their heads. Delegating all that up front work to a
non-core just seems counter to the entire process of code reviews.
Better would be reduce the # of reviews in the queue (what is proposed
by this change) or trust new reviewers "faster". I'm not sure how you
do that - but this second model is what your proposing.
I think one thing that would be helpful is to point out somehow in the
workflow that two core reviewers are involved in the review so core
reviewers don't have to sift through 10 pages of reviews to find new
Now that the specs repo is in place and has been proved with Juno, most
of the design stage is approved before the implementation is going. If
the cores are getting more time because they wouldn't be focused on each
single patchset, they could really find some patches they would like to
look at, or they could just wait for the half-approvals from the halfcores.
If a core thinks that a patch is enough tricky for looking at each
iteration, I don't see any bad things. At least, it's up to the core
reviewer to choose which patches he could look at, and he would be more
free than if the slots proposal would be there.
I'm a core from a tiny project but I know how time consuming it is. I
would really enjoy if I could delegate some of my review time to people
willing to. That's also a good opportunity for seeing whose people would
be good for cores, because they would be more visible as halfcores,
provided they would not only review in mass, but also participate to the
design discussions etc.
We all know that the review metrics mean nothing, so we can't trust
people even if they're doing lots of reviews. By creating a middle
position for reviewing, that would focus the attention on their work,
without aleviating what would be *really* approved. Don't leave me speak
about Ben Parker from Spiderman, and how power and responsibilities are
As I said elsewhere, I dislike the slots proposal because it sends to
the developers the message that the price to pay for contributing to
Nova is increasing. Again, that's not because you're prioritizing
that you increase your velocity, that's 2 distinct subjects.
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list