On 09/15/2014 05:52 PM, Brant Knudson wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Michael Still <mi...@stillhq.com > <mailto:mi...@stillhq.com>> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com > <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 09/15/2014 05:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 07:07:13AM +1000, Michael Still wrote: > >>> Just an observation from the last week or so... > >>> > >>> The biggest problem nova faces at the moment isn't code review > latency. Our > >>> biggest problem is failing to fix our bugs so that the gate is > reliable. > >>> The number of rechecks we've done in the last week to try and land > code is > >>> truly startling. > >> > >> I consider both problems to be pretty much equally as important. I > don't > >> think solving review latency or test reliabilty in isolation is enough > to > >> save Nova. We need to tackle both problems as a priority. I tried to > avoid > >> getting into my concerns about testing in my mail on review team > bottlenecks > >> since I think we should address the problems independantly / in > parallel. > > > > Agreed with this. I don't think we can afford to ignore either one of > them. > > Yes, that was my point. I don't mind us debating how to rearrange > hypervisor drivers. However, if we think that will solve all our > problems we are confused. > > So, how do we get people to start taking bugs / gate failures more > seriously? > > Michael > > > What do you think about having an irc channel for working through gate > bugs? I've always found looking at gate failures frustrating because I > seem to be expected to work through these by myself, and maybe > somebody's already looking at it or has more information that I don't > know about. There have been times already where a gate bug that could > have left everything broken for a while wound up fixed pretty quickly > because we were able to find the right person hanging out in irc. > Sometimes all it takes is for someone with the right knowledge to be > there. A hypothetical exchange: > > rechecker: I got this error where the tempest-foo test failed ... http://... > tempest-expert: That test calls the compute-bar nova API > nova-expert: That API calls the network-baz neutron API > neutron-expert: When you call that API you need to also call this other > API to poll for it to be done... is nova doing that? > nova-expert: Nope. Fix on the way.
Honestly, the #openstack-qa channel is a completely appropriate place for that. Plus it already has a lot of the tempest experts. Realistically anyone that works on these kinds of fixes tend to be there. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev