> -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 07 April 2015 19:03 > To: Michael Still > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] Fixing the Nova Core Reviewer Frustration [was Re: > [Nova] PTL Candidacy] > > On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:27 +1000, Michael Still wrote: > > Additionally, we have consistently asked for non-cores to help cover > > the review load. It doesn't have to be a core that notices a problem > > with a patch -- anyone can do that. There are many people who do help > > out with non-core reviews, and I am thankful for all of them. However, > > I keep meeting people who complain about review delays, but who don't > > have a history of reviewing themselves. That's confusing and > > frustrating to me. > > I can understand why you're frustrated, but not why you're surprised: > the process needs to be different. Right now the statement is that for a > patch > series to be accepted it has to have a positive review from a core plus one > other, > however the "one other" can be a colleague, so it's easy. The problem, as > far as > submitters see it, is getting that Core Reviewer. That's why so much frenzy > (which contributes to your > frustration) goes into it. And why all the complaining which annoys you. > > To fix the frustration, you need to fix the process: Make the cores more of a > second level approver rather than a front line reviewer and I predict the > frenzy > to get a core will go down and so will core frustration. Why not require a +1 > from one (or even more than one) independent (for some useful value of > independent) reviewer before the cores will even look at it? That way the > cores > know someone already thought the patch was good, so they're no longer being > pestered to review any old thing and the first job of a submitter becomes to > find > an independent reviewer rather than go bother a core. >
If I take a case that we were very interest in (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129420/) for nested project quota, we seemed to need two +2s from core reviewers on the spec. There were many +1s but these did not seem to result in an increase in attention to get the +2s. Initial submission of the spec was in October but we did not get approval till the end of January. Unfortunately, we were unable to get the code into the right shape after the spec approval to make it into Kilo. One of the issues for the academic/research sector is that there is a significant resource available from project resources but these are time limited. Thus, if a blueprint and code commit cannot be completed within the window for the project, the project ends and resources to complete are no longer available. Naturally, rejections on quality grounds such as code issues or lack of test cases is completely reasonable but the latency time can extend the time to delivery significantly. Luckily, in this case, the people concerned are happy to continue to completion (and the foundation is sponsoring the travel for the summit too) but this would not always be the case. Tim > James > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > _________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
