Hi Armando,
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 14:51 +0200, Armando M. wrote:
I wonder what the turnaround of trivial patches actually is, I bet you
it's very very small, and as Daniel said, the human burden is rather
minimal (I would be more concerned about slowing them down in the
gate, but I digress).
On 19/06/14 08:32, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Armando,
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 14:51 +0200, Armando M. wrote:
I wonder what the turnaround of trivial patches actually is, I bet you
it's very very small, and as Daniel said, the human burden is rather
minimal (I would be more concerned about
On 06/18/2014 08:31 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com
mailto:cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2014-06-17 03:56:10 -0700:
A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial review issues
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 09:34 +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
On 19/06/14 08:32, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Armando,
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 14:51 +0200, Armando M. wrote:
I wonder what the turnaround of trivial patches actually is, I bet you
it's very very small, and as Daniel said, the human
On 19/06/14 13:22, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 09:34 +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
On 19/06/14 08:32, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Armando,
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 14:51 +0200, Armando M. wrote:
I wonder what the turnaround of trivial patches actually is, I bet you
it's very very
On 17/06/14 17:55, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/17/2014 12:22 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com
mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial review issues
on core reviewers is
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/17/2014 12:22 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com
mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial
Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/17/2014 08:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 01:12:45PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
On 17/06/14 12:36, Sean Dague wrote:
It could go in the commit message:
TrivialFix
Then could be queried with -
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:04:15AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/17/2014 08:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 01:12:45PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
On 17/06/14 12:36, Sean Dague wrote:
It could go in the commit message:
TrivialFix
On 06/18/2014 04:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/17/2014 12:22 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com
mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
A far more effective
On 06/18/2014 05:24 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:04:15AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/17/2014 08:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 01:12:45PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
On 17/06/14 12:36, Sean Dague wrote:
It could go
On 18 June 2014 10:04, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
As an aside, we don't really need two core reviewers to bless a trivial
change: one could be considered sufficient. So a patch marked as trivial
which has a number of +1s could be +2/APRVed directly by a core reviewer.
That
On 06/18/2014 08:26 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 18 June 2014 10:04, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
As an aside, we don't really need two core reviewers to bless a trivial
change: one could be considered sufficient. So a patch marked as trivial
which has a number of +1s could be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/06/14 13:31, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/18/2014 08:26 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 18 June 2014 10:04, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
As an aside, we don't really need two core reviewers to bless a
trivial change: one could be
On 18 June 2014 15:28, Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 18/06/14 13:31, Sean Dague wrote:
Even with 2 +2s you do the wrong thing. Yesterday we landed
baremetal tests that broke ironic. It has a ton of +1s from people
that have been working on those tests.
This is slightly off topic,
On 06/18/2014 08:35 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 18 June 2014 15:28, Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com wrote:
The answer is not always more
review: there are other tools in the box. Imagine we spent 50% of the
time we spend on review writing tempest tests instead.
Or we push the work off of core
Chris Friesen chris.frie...@windriver.com writes:
On 06/18/2014 08:35 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 18 June 2014 15:28, Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com wrote:
The answer is not always more
review: there are other tools in the box. Imagine we spent 50% of the
time we spend on review writing
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:
Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2014-06-17 03:56:10 -0700:
A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial review issues
on core reviewers is for none-core reviewers to get in there first,
spot the
We all know that review can be a bottleneck for Nova patches.Not only
that, but a patch lingering in review, no matter how trivial, will
eventually accrue rebases which sap gate resources, developer time, and
will to live.
It occurs to me that there are a significant class of patches which
simply
A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial review issues
on core reviewers is for none-core reviewers to get in there first,
spot the problems and add a -1 - the trivial issues are then hopefully
fixed up before a core reviewer even looks at the patch.
The fundamental problem with
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:04:17AM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
We all know that review can be a bottleneck for Nova patches.Not only
that, but a patch lingering in review, no matter how trivial, will
eventually accrue rebases which sap gate resources, developer time, and
will to live.
It
On 06/17/2014 07:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:04:17AM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
We all know that review can be a bottleneck for Nova patches.Not only
that, but a patch lingering in review, no matter how trivial, will
eventually accrue rebases which sap gate
On 6/17/14, 1:56 PM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial review issues
on core reviewers is for none-core reviewers to get in there first,
spot the problems and add a -1 - the trivial issues are then hopefully
fixed up before a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/06/14 12:36, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/17/2014 07:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:04:17AM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
We all know that review can be a bottleneck for Nova
patches.Not only that, but a patch lingering
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 01:12:45PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/06/14 12:36, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/17/2014 07:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
If would be nice if gerrit had simple keyword tagging so any
reviewer can tag an existing
On 06/17/2014 08:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 01:12:45PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/06/14 12:36, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/17/2014 07:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
If would be nice if gerrit had simple keyword
I wonder what the turnaround of trivial patches actually is, I bet you it's
very very small, and as Daniel said, the human burden is rather minimal (I
would be more concerned about slowing them down in the gate, but I digress).
I think that introducing a two-tier level for patch approval can only
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder what the turnaround of trivial patches actually is, I bet you
it's very very small, and as Daniel said, the human burden is rather
minimal (I would be more concerned about slowing them down in the gate, but
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/17/2014 09:52 AM, John Griffith wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com
wrote:
I wonder what the turnaround of trivial patches actually is, I
bet you it's very very small, and as Daniel said, the human
burden
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com
wrote:
A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial review issues
on core reviewers is for none-core reviewers to get in there first,
spot the problems and add a -1 - the trivial issues are then hopefully
fixed
On 06/17/2014 12:22 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com
mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial review issues
on core reviewers is for none-core reviewers to get in
31 matches
Mail list logo
