]
Sent: 04 September 2014 18:24
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Review metrics - what do we want
to measure?
It can, by running your own... but again it seems far better for core
reviewers to decide if a change has potential or needs
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:54:20PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2014-09-04 11:01:55 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote:
[...]
How would people feel about turning [auto-abandon] back on?
A lot of reviewers (myself among them) feel auto-abandon was a
cold and emotionless way to provide
On 09/10/2014 03:57 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:54:20PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2014-09-04 11:01:55 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote:
[...]
How would people feel about turning [auto-abandon] back on?
A lot of reviewers (myself among them) feel auto-abandon
On 14/08/14 00:03, James Polley wrote:
In recent history, we've been looking each week at stats
from http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-openreviews.html
to get a gauge on how our review pipeline is tracking.
The main stats we've been tracking have been the since the last
On 2014-09-04 11:01:55 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote:
[...]
How would people feel about turning [auto-abandon] back on?
A lot of reviewers (myself among them) feel auto-abandon was a
cold and emotionless way to provide feedback on a change. Especially
on high-change-volume projects where
On 04/09/14 14:54, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2014-09-04 11:01:55 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote:
[...]
How would people feel about turning [auto-abandon] back on?
A lot of reviewers (myself among them) feel auto-abandon was a
cold and emotionless way to provide feedback on a change.
On 09/04/2014 08:54 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2014-09-04 11:01:55 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote:
[...]
How would people feel about turning [auto-abandon] back on?
A lot of reviewers (myself among them) feel auto-abandon was a
cold and emotionless way to provide feedback on a change.
It can, by running your own... but again it seems far better for
core reviewers to decide if a change has potential or needs to be
abandoned--that way there's an accountable human making that
deliberate choice rather than the review team hiding behind an
automated process so that no one is to
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 12:58 +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
On 14 August 2014 11:03, James Polley j...@jamezpolley.com wrote:
In recent history, we've been looking each week at stats from
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-openreviews.html to get a
gauge on how our review
On 9/3/14 10:43 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2014-09-03 11:51:13 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
I thought there was now a thung where zuul can use a different account
per pipeline?
That was the most likely solution we discussed at the summit, but I
don't believe we've implemented it yet
I've moved it back up the review chain for you :-)
Rackspace Australia
On 9/3/14 6:34 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
We would benefit a great deal from having this sooner.
On 3 September 2014 20:11, Joshua Hesketh joshua.hesk...@rackspace.com wrote:
On 9/3/14 10:43 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On
On 16 August 2014 02:43, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2014-08-13 19:51:52 -0500 (-0500), Ben Nemec wrote:
[...]
make the check-tripleo job leave an actual vote rather than just a
comment.
[...]
That, as previously discussed, will require some design work in
Zuul. Gerrit uses
On 2014-09-03 11:51:13 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote:
I thought there was now a thung where zuul can use a different account
per pipeline?
That was the most likely solution we discussed at the summit, but I
don't believe we've implemented it yet (or if we have then it isn't
yet being used
On 14 August 2014 11:03, James Polley j...@jamezpolley.com wrote:
In recent history, we've been looking each week at stats from
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-openreviews.html to get a
gauge on how our review pipeline is tracking.
The main stats we've been tracking have been
On 2014-08-13 19:51:52 -0500 (-0500), Ben Nemec wrote:
[...]
make the check-tripleo job leave an actual vote rather than just a
comment.
[...]
That, as previously discussed, will require some design work in
Zuul. Gerrit uses a single field per account for verify votes, which
means that if you
One thing I am very interested in finally following up on, especially in
light of the snazzy new Gerrit separation for CI jobs, is to make the
check-tripleo job leave an actual vote rather than just a comment. This
would clean up the (usually) many reviews sitting with a failing CI run,
for the
16 matches
Mail list logo
