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
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to