Michael Still wrote: > 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?
I think we need to build a cross-project team working on that. Having gate liaisons designated in every project should help bootstrap that team -- it doesn't mean it's a one-person-per-project job, but at least you have a contact person when you need an expert in some project that is also versed in the arts of the gate. I also think we need to do a slightly better job at visualizing issues. Like Dims said, even with tabs opened to the right places, it's non-trivial to determine which is the killer bug from which isn't. And without carefully checking IRC backlog in 4 different channels, it's also hard to find out that a bug is already taken care of. I woke up one morning with gate being obviously stuck on some issue, investigated it, only to realize after 30 minutes that the fix was already in the gate queue. That's a bit of a frustrating experience. Finally, it's not completely crazy to use a specific channel (#openstack-gate ?) for that. Yes, there is a lot of overlap with -qa and -infra channels, but those channels aren't dedicated to that problem, so 25% of the issues are discussed on one, 25% on the other, 25% on the project-specific channel, and the remaining 25% on some random channel the right people happen to be in. Having a clear channel where all the gate liaisons hang out and all issues are discussed may go a long way into establishing a team to work on that (rather than continue to rely on the same set of willing individuals). -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev