On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:21 PM, mar...@redhat.com <mandr...@redhat.com>
wrote:

> On 17/09/14 16:40, Charles Crouch wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
> >> week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for stale reviews
> >> (like gerrit used to do when I were a lad).
> >>
> >> The specific criteria discussed was 'items that have a -1 from a core
> >> but no response from author for 14 days'. This topic came up again
> >> during today's meeting and it wasn't clear if the intention was for
> >> cores to start enforcing this? So:
> >>
> >> Do we start setting WIP/workflow -1 for those reviews that have a -1
> >> from a core but no response from author for 14 days
> >>
> >> thanks, marios
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2014/tripleo.2014-09-09-19.04.log.html
> >
> > So it looks like this has already started..
> >
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105275/
> >
> > I think we need to document on the wiki *precisely* the criteria for
> setting
> > WIP/workflow -1. For example that review above has a Jenkins failure but
> no
> > core reviews at all.
>
> +1 on being precise - another case in point:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102304/
>
> this review has a *-2* from core, which seems to 'stick' for future
> revisions; the last revision is from > 14 days ago, so does this fulfill
> the criteria (I'd say it doesn't)?
>
> Not sure if you were also suggesting that -1 from Jenkins also counts,
> which imo makes sense...
>
> 'items that have a -1 from core or jenkins, or a -2 from core on the
> latest revision, and no response from author for 14 days'
>
> Really this needs to be put as a motion and voted on in the next meeting,
>

My understanding has always been that we don't make decisions based on
votes on IRC meetings, because it's hard to get a time for the meeting that
allows the whole team to be easily present. I wouldn't feel comfortable
doing this at the US-timezone meeting as it excludes most of APAC; nor at
the EU-timezone meeting as it excludes most of the US.

If we're looking for consensus, I'd suggest we use Gerrit to collect votes.
We could model this is a change to the CONTRIBUTING.rst[1], or perhaps we
could draft a spec around the expected workflow (perhaps formalising some
of our expectations around cores averaging 3 reviews/workday + 1 spec
review/workday at the same time?

But perhaps I'm overthinking and making this far more formal than it has to
be. We've had a fair bit of discussion on the list and we seem to be
broadly in agreement; perhaps we just need someone to propose some details
and see if we can get consensus here.

[1] What's that you say? We don't have a CONTRIBUTING.rst? One second, let
me fix that *tap tap tap* We will as soon as
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/122350/ lands!


> thanks, marios
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to