Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Jay Dobies jason.dob...@redhat.com wrote: At the meetup today, the topic of our spec process came up. The general sentiment is that the process is still young and the hiccups are expected, but we do need to get better about making sure we're staying on top of them. As a first step, it was proposed to add 1 spec review a week to the existing 3 reviews per day requirement for cores. Additionally, we're going to start to capture and review the metrics on spec patches specifically during the weekly meeting. That should help bring to light how long reviews are sitting in the queue without being touched. What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week requirement for cores? You mean cores in Ironic and not the cores in the ironic-spec-core group[1] right? Either way, 1 review per week seems to be very reasonable, the minimum you can expect from a core, so +1 for the idea. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/352,members ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal
Oh sorry... I thought it was about Ironic not TripleO (morning issues) Anyway, it could be something that we could adopt in Ironic as well :) On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes lucasago...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Jay Dobies jason.dob...@redhat.com wrote: At the meetup today, the topic of our spec process came up. The general sentiment is that the process is still young and the hiccups are expected, but we do need to get better about making sure we're staying on top of them. As a first step, it was proposed to add 1 spec review a week to the existing 3 reviews per day requirement for cores. Additionally, we're going to start to capture and review the metrics on spec patches specifically during the weekly meeting. That should help bring to light how long reviews are sitting in the queue without being touched. What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week requirement for cores? You mean cores in Ironic and not the cores in the ironic-spec-core group[1] right? Either way, 1 review per week seems to be very reasonable, the minimum you can expect from a core, so +1 for the idea. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/352,members ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Jay Dobies jason.dob...@redhat.com wrote: What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week requirement for cores? Averaged over the standard 90d period I presume? +1 here. Alexis -- Nova Engineer, HP Cloud. AKA lealexis, lxsli. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal
For everyone's reference, the tripleo-specs stats can be found here: http://www.nemebean.com/reviewstats/tripleo-specs-30.txt Note that looking at the stats, over 30 days 1 review per week is only 4, which most of our cores are already doing anyway. I'm not sure codifying a requirement to do at least that is going to help much. To move the needle I'm thinking we would need at least 3 - most of our cores aren't meeting that today so it would actually require everyone to do more reviews. Spec reviews are difficult and tend to take a significant amount of time, so that would be a considerable increase in time commitments for cores. I'm not sure how I feel about that, although I'm probably biased because I'm not at 3 per week right now. :-) -Ben On 2014-07-22 15:18, Jay Dobies wrote: At the meetup today, the topic of our spec process came up. The general sentiment is that the process is still young and the hiccups are expected, but we do need to get better about making sure we're staying on top of them. As a first step, it was proposed to add 1 spec review a week to the existing 3 reviews per day requirement for cores. Additionally, we're going to start to capture and review the metrics on spec patches specifically during the weekly meeting. That should help bring to light how long reviews are sitting in the queue without being touched. What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week requirement for cores? Not surprisingly, I'm +1 for it :) ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal
So given the increased complexity of a spec, why not make it 2 specs per week? Matt -Original Message- From: Ben Nemec [mailto:openst...@nemebean.com] Sent: 23 July 2014 14:21 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal For everyone's reference, the tripleo-specs stats can be found here: http://www.nemebean.com/reviewstats/tripleo-specs-30.txt Note that looking at the stats, over 30 days 1 review per week is only 4, which most of our cores are already doing anyway. I'm not sure codifying a requirement to do at least that is going to help much. To move the needle I'm thinking we would need at least 3 - most of our cores aren't meeting that today so it would actually require everyone to do more reviews. Spec reviews are difficult and tend to take a significant amount of time, so that would be a considerable increase in time commitments for cores. I'm not sure how I feel about that, although I'm probably biased because I'm not at 3 per week right now. :-) -Ben On 2014-07-22 15:18, Jay Dobies wrote: At the meetup today, the topic of our spec process came up. The general sentiment is that the process is still young and the hiccups are expected, but we do need to get better about making sure we're staying on top of them. As a first step, it was proposed to add 1 spec review a week to the existing 3 reviews per day requirement for cores. Additionally, we're going to start to capture and review the metrics on spec patches specifically during the weekly meeting. That should help bring to light how long reviews are sitting in the queue without being touched. What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week requirement for cores? Not surprisingly, I'm +1 for it :) ___ 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] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal
At the meetup today, the topic of our spec process came up. The general sentiment is that the process is still young and the hiccups are expected, but we do need to get better about making sure we're staying on top of them. As a first step, it was proposed to add 1 spec review a week to the existing 3 reviews per day requirement for cores. Additionally, we're going to start to capture and review the metrics on spec patches specifically during the weekly meeting. That should help bring to light how long reviews are sitting in the queue without being touched. What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week requirement for cores? Not surprisingly, I'm +1 for it :) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
