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 Dague

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to