On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:21 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> 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 > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
