Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-10 Thread Vishvananda Ishaya 

On Dec 4, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Michael Still  wrote:

> One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
> reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
> thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
> parts of OpenStack.
> 
> However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
> keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
> Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
> from the nova-core group.
> 
> I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the years:
> 
> * cbehrens: Chris Behrens
> * vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya

Thank you Michael. I knew this would happen eventually.  I am around and I
still do reviews from time to time, so everyone feel free to ping me on irc
if there are specific reviews that need my historical knowledge!

Vish

> * dan-prince: Dan Prince
> * belliott: Brian Elliott
> * p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
> 
> I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
> time for code reviews increases.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> 
> -- 
> Rackspace Australia
> 
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-08 Thread Sean Dague 
On 12/07/2014 12:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 12/07/2014 04:19 AM, Michael Still wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Gary Kotton  wrote:
>>> On 12/6/14, 7:42 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
 -1 on pixelbeat, since he's been active in reviews on
 various things AFAICT in the last 60-90 days and seems to be still a
 considerate reviewer in various areas.
>>>
>>> I agree -1 for Padraig
>>
>> I'm going to be honest and say I'm confused here.
>>
>> We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
>> reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
>> a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
>> reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
>> from a core.
>>
>> Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement? If
>> so, how do we balance that with the widespread complaints that core
>> isn't keeping up with its workload? We could add more people to core,
>> but there is also a maximum practical size to the group if we're going
>> to keep everyone on the same page, especially when the less active
>> cores don't generally turn up to our IRC meetings and are therefore
>> more "expensive" to keep up to date.
>>
>> How can we say we are doing our best to keep up with the incoming
>> review workload if all reviewers aren't doing at least the minimum
>> level of reviews?
> 
> Personally, I care more about the quality of reviews than the quantity.
> That said, I understand that we have a small number of core reviewers
> relative to the number of open reviews in Nova (~650-700 open reviews
> most days) and agree with Dan Smith that 2 reviews per day doesn't sound
> like too much of a hurdle for core reviewers.
> 
> The reason I think it's important to keep Padraig as a core is that he
> has done considerate, thoughtful code reviews, albeit in a smaller
> quantity. By saying we only look at the number of reviews in our
> estimation of keeping contributors on the core team, we are
> incentivizing the wrong behaviour, IMO. We should be pushing that the
> thought that goes into reviews is more important than the sheer number
> of reviews.
> 
> Is it critical that we get more eyeballs reviewing code? Yes, absolutely
> it is. Is it critical that we get more reviews from core reviewers as
> well as non-core reviewers. Yes, absolutely.
> 
> Bottom line, we need to balance between quality and quantity, and
> kicking out a core reviewer who has quality code reviews because they
> don't have that many of them sends the wrong message, IMO.

Maybe. I'm kind of torn on it.

I think we need to separate "providing insightful reviews" with
"actively engaged in Nova". I feel like there are tons of community
members that provide insightful reviews that we hold a patch until we've
seen their relevant +1 in an area of their expertise. If our concern is
missing expertise, then I don't think this changes things.

I could go either way on this one in particular. But I'm also happy to
drop and move forward. Padraig's commit history in OpenStack atm show's
that his focus right now isn't upstream. He's not currently very active
in IRC regularly, on the ML, triaging bugs, or fixing bugs, which are
all ways we know folks are engaged enough to have a feel where the norms
of Nova have evolved. Which is cool, folks change focus.

I think in the past we've erred very heavily on making it tough to let
people into the core reviewer team because it's so hard to remove
people. Which doesn't help us grow, we stagnate. I think the fear of a
fight on removal of core reviewers every time makes people even more
cautious in supporting adds.

Maybe this is erring in the other direction, but I'm happy to take
Michael's judgement call on that that it isn't. If Padraig gets more
engaged, I'd be happy adding him back in.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-08 Thread Daniel P. Berrange 
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:19:54PM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Gary Kotton  wrote:
> > On 12/6/14, 7:42 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >>-1 on pixelbeat, since he's been active in reviews on
> >>various things AFAICT in the last 60-90 days and seems to be still a
> >>considerate reviewer in various areas.
> >
> > I agree -1 for Padraig
> 
> I'm going to be honest and say I'm confused here.
> 
> We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
> reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
> a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
> reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
> from a core.

Even that limited 60 reviews is still having a notable positive
impact to the ability of Nova core to get things done.

> Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement? If
> so, how do we balance that with the widespread complaints that core
> isn't keeping up with its workload? We could add more people to core,
> but there is also a maximum practical size to the group if we're going
> to keep everyone on the same page, especially when the less active
> cores don't generally turn up to our IRC meetings and are therefore
> more "expensive" to keep up to date.
> 
> How can we say we are doing our best to keep up with the incoming
> review workload if all reviewers aren't doing at least the minimum
> level of reviews?

How exactly is cutting more people from core helping us to keep up
with the incoming review workoad ? It just makes it worse.

The only way to mahorly help with that is to either get about 10-20
more people onto core which is unlikely, or to majorly split up the
project as I've suggested in the past, or something in between. eg
give the top 40 people in the review count list the ability to +2
things, leaving Nova core to just toggle the +A bit.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-08 Thread Daniel P. Berrange 
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 07:56:21AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> I used Russell's 60 day stats in making this decision. I can't find a
> documented historical precedent on what period the stats should be
> generated over, however 60 days seems entirely reasonable to me.
> 
> 2014-12-05 15:41:11.212927
> 
> Reviews for the last 60 days in nova
> ** -- nova-core team member
> +-+---++
> |   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- %
> | Disagreements* |
> +-+---++
> | berrange ** | 669   13 134   1 521 19478.0%
> |   47 (  7.0%)  |
> |   jogo **   | 431   38 161   2 230 11753.8%
> |   19 (  4.4%)  |
> |  oomichi ** | 3091 106   4 198  5865.4%
> |3 (  1.0%)  |
> |   danms **  | 293   34 133  15 111  4343.0%
> |   12 (  4.1%)  |
> | jaypipes ** | 290   10 108  14 158  4259.3%
> |   15 (  5.2%)  |
> | ndipanov ** | 192   10  78   6  98  2454.2%
> |   24 ( 12.5%)  |
> |  klmitch ** | 1901  22   0 167  1287.9%
> |   21 ( 11.1%)  |
> |  cyeoh-0 ** | 1840  70  10 104  4162.0%
> |9 (  4.9%)  |
> |  mriedem ** | 1733  86   8  76  3148.6%
> |8 (  4.6%)  |
> |johngarbutt **   | 164   19  79   6  60  2440.2%
> |7 (  4.3%)  |
> | cerberus ** | 1510   9  40 102  3894.0%
> |7 (  4.6%)  |
> |mikalstill **| 1452   8   1 134  4893.1%
> |3 (  2.1%)  |
> |  alaski **  | 1040   7   6  91  5493.3%
> |5 (  4.8%)  |
> |  sdague **  |  986  21   2  69  4072.4%
> |4 (  4.1%)  |
> | russellb ** |  861  10   0  75  2987.2%
> |5 (  5.8%)  |
> |   p-draigbrady **   |  600  12   1  47  1080.0%
> |4 (  6.7%)  |
> | belliott ** |  320   8   1  23  1575.0%
> |4 ( 12.5%)  |
> |vishvananda **   |   80   2   0   6   175.0%
> |2 ( 25.0%)  |
> |dan-prince **|   70   0   0   7   3   100.0%
> |4 ( 57.1%)  |
> | cbehrens ** |   40   2   0   2   050.0%
> |1 ( 25.0%)  |
> 
> The previously held standard for core reviewer activity has been an
> _average_ of two reviews per day, which is why I used the 60 days
> stats (to eliminate vacations and so forth). It should be noted that
> the top ten or so reviewers are doing at lot more than that.
> 
> All of the reviewers I dropped are valued members of the team, and I
> am sad to see all of them go. However, it is important that reviewers
> remain active.

Given that the Nova core is horrifically overworked & understaffed,
I really think this being really counterproductive to the project
needs to do this. It is just making the bad situation we're in
even worse :-(

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-08 Thread Nikola Đipanov 
On 12/07/2014 08:52 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> 
> You know what makes me really sad? No one has suggested that perhaps
> Padraig could just pick up his review rate a little. I've repeatedly
> said we can re-add reviewers if that happens.
> 

This is of course not true - everybody *but* the people on this thread
agree with it (otherwise they would have responded) since re-adding
cores is a well know process, so him picking it up and getting re-added
is not what is discussed here.

What we (or at least I and afaict Jay) are saying is - even though his
numbers are low - we still think he should be core because the
thoughtfulness of his reviews matters more to us than the fact that he
is otherwise engaged besides Nova.

N.

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-08 Thread Gary Kotton 
Hi,
I would expect that if a core does not understand a piece of code then he/she 
would not approve it they can always give a +1 and be honest that it is not 
part of the code base that they understand. That is legitimate in such a 
complex and large project.
We all make mistakes, it is the only way that we can learn and grow. Limiting 
the size of the core team is limiting the growth, quality and pulse of the 
project.
Thanks
Gary

From: Sylvain Bauza mailto:sba...@redhat.com>>
Reply-To: OpenStack List 
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Monday, December 8, 2014 at 10:15 AM
To: OpenStack List 
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core


Le 07/12/2014 23:27, Dan Smith a écrit :

The argument boils down to there is a communications cost to adding
someone to core, and therefore there is a maximum size before the
communications burden becomes to great.


I'm definitely of the mindset that the core team is something that has a
maximum effective size. Nova is complicated and always changing; keeping
everyone on top of current development themes is difficult. Just last
week, we merged a patch that bumped the version of an RPC API without
making the manager tolerant of the previous version. That's a theme
we've had for a while, and yet it was still acked by two cores.

A major complaint I hear a lot is "one core told me to do X and then
another core told me to do !X". Obviously this will always happen, but I
do think that the larger and more disconnected the core team becomes,
the more often this will occur. If all the cores reviewed at the rate of
the top five and we still had a throughput problem, then evaluating the
optimal size would be a thing we'd need to do. However, even at the
current size, we have (IMHO) communication problems, mostly uninvolved
cores, and patches going in that break versioning rules. Making the team
arbitrarily larger doesn't seem like a good idea to me.


As a non-core, I can't speak about how cores communicate within the team. That 
said, I can just say it is sometimes very hard to review all the codepaths that 
Nova has, in particular when some new rules are coming in (for example, API 
microversions, online data migrations or reducing the tech debt in the 
Scheduler).

As a consequence, I can understand that some people can do mistakes when 
reviewing a specific change because they are not experts or because they missed 
some important non-written good practice.
That said, I think this situatiion doesn't necessarly mean that it can't be 
improved by simple rules.

For example, the revert policy is a good thing : errors can happen, and 
admitting that it's normal that a revert can happen in the next couple of days 
seems fine by me. Also, why not considering that some cores are more experts 
than others in a single codepath ? I mean, we all know who to address if we 
have some specific questions about a change (like impacting virt drivers, 
objects, or API). So, why a change wouldn't be at least +1'd by these expert 
cores before *approving* it ?

As Nova is growing, I'm not sure if it's good to cap the team. IMHO, mistakes 
are human, that shouldn't be the reason why the team is not growing, but rather 
how we can make sure that disagreements wouldn't be a problem.

(Now going back in my cavern)
-Sylvain



I will say that I am disappointed that we have cores who don't
regularly attend our IRC meetings. That makes the communication much
more complicated.


Agreed. We alternate the meeting times such that this shouldn't be hard,
IMHO.

--Dan





___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto: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] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-08 Thread Sylvain Bauza 


Le 07/12/2014 23:27, Dan Smith a écrit :

The argument boils down to there is a communications cost to adding
someone to core, and therefore there is a maximum size before the
communications burden becomes to great.

I'm definitely of the mindset that the core team is something that has a
maximum effective size. Nova is complicated and always changing; keeping
everyone on top of current development themes is difficult. Just last
week, we merged a patch that bumped the version of an RPC API without
making the manager tolerant of the previous version. That's a theme
we've had for a while, and yet it was still acked by two cores.

A major complaint I hear a lot is "one core told me to do X and then
another core told me to do !X". Obviously this will always happen, but I
do think that the larger and more disconnected the core team becomes,
the more often this will occur. If all the cores reviewed at the rate of
the top five and we still had a throughput problem, then evaluating the
optimal size would be a thing we'd need to do. However, even at the
current size, we have (IMHO) communication problems, mostly uninvolved
cores, and patches going in that break versioning rules. Making the team
arbitrarily larger doesn't seem like a good idea to me.


As a non-core, I can't speak about how cores communicate within the 
team. That said, I can just say it is sometimes very hard to review all 
the codepaths that Nova has, in particular when some new rules are 
coming in (for example, API microversions, online data migrations or 
reducing the tech debt in the Scheduler).


As a consequence, I can understand that some people can do mistakes when 
reviewing a specific change because they are not experts or because they 
missed some important non-written good practice.
That said, I think this situatiion doesn't necessarly mean that it can't 
be improved by simple rules.


For example, the revert policy is a good thing : errors can happen, and 
admitting that it's normal that a revert can happen in the next couple 
of days seems fine by me. Also, why not considering that some cores are 
more experts than others in a single codepath ? I mean, we all know who 
to address if we have some specific questions about a change (like 
impacting virt drivers, objects, or API). So, why a change wouldn't be 
at least +1'd by these expert cores before *approving* it ?


As Nova is growing, I'm not sure if it's good to cap the team. IMHO, 
mistakes are human, that shouldn't be the reason why the team is not 
growing, but rather how we can make sure that disagreements wouldn't be 
a problem.


(Now going back in my cavern)
-Sylvain



I will say that I am disappointed that we have cores who don't
regularly attend our IRC meetings. That makes the communication much
more complicated.

Agreed. We alternate the meeting times such that this shouldn't be hard,
IMHO.

--Dan



___
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] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Dan Smith 
> The argument boils down to there is a communications cost to adding 
> someone to core, and therefore there is a maximum size before the 
> communications burden becomes to great.

I'm definitely of the mindset that the core team is something that has a
maximum effective size. Nova is complicated and always changing; keeping
everyone on top of current development themes is difficult. Just last
week, we merged a patch that bumped the version of an RPC API without
making the manager tolerant of the previous version. That's a theme
we've had for a while, and yet it was still acked by two cores.

A major complaint I hear a lot is "one core told me to do X and then
another core told me to do !X". Obviously this will always happen, but I
do think that the larger and more disconnected the core team becomes,
the more often this will occur. If all the cores reviewed at the rate of
the top five and we still had a throughput problem, then evaluating the
optimal size would be a thing we'd need to do. However, even at the
current size, we have (IMHO) communication problems, mostly uninvolved
cores, and patches going in that break versioning rules. Making the team
arbitrarily larger doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

> I will say that I am disappointed that we have cores who don't
> regularly attend our IRC meetings. That makes the communication much
> more complicated.

Agreed. We alternate the meeting times such that this shouldn't be hard,
IMHO.

--Dan



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Michael Still 
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Johannes Erdfelt  wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014, Michael Still  wrote:
>> There are other things happening behind the scenes as well -- we have
>> a veto process for current cores when we propose a new core. It has
>> been made clear to me that several current core members believe we
>> have reached "the maximum effective size" for core, and that they will
>> therefore veto new additions. Therefore, we need to make room in core
>> for people who are able to keep up with our review workload.
>
> I've heard this before, but I've never understood this.
>
> Can you (or someone else) elaborate on why they believe that there is an
> upper limit on the size of nova-core and why that is the current size?

I'm not particularly advocating this stance, but it is the context I
need to operate in (where a single veto can kill a nomination). The
argument boils down to there is a communications cost to adding
someone to core, and therefore there is a maximum size before the
communications burden becomes to great.

I will say that I am disappointed that we have cores who don't
regularly attend our IRC meetings. That makes the communication much
more complicated.

Michael

-- 
Rackspace Australia

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Johannes Erdfelt 
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014, Michael Still  wrote:
> There are other things happening behind the scenes as well -- we have
> a veto process for current cores when we propose a new core. It has
> been made clear to me that several current core members believe we
> have reached "the maximum effective size" for core, and that they will
> therefore veto new additions. Therefore, we need to make room in core
> for people who are able to keep up with our review workload.

I've heard this before, but I've never understood this.

Can you (or someone else) elaborate on why they believe that there is an
upper limit on the size of nova-core and why that is the current size?

JE


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Michael Still 
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
> On 12/07/2014 04:19 AM, Michael Still wrote:

[snip]

>> We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
>> reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
>> a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
>> reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
>> from a core.
>>
>> Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement? If
>> so, how do we balance that with the widespread complaints that core
>> isn't keeping up with its workload? We could add more people to core,
>> but there is also a maximum practical size to the group if we're going
>> to keep everyone on the same page, especially when the less active
>> cores don't generally turn up to our IRC meetings and are therefore
>> more "expensive" to keep up to date.
>>
>> How can we say we are doing our best to keep up with the incoming
>> review workload if all reviewers aren't doing at least the minimum
>> level of reviews?
>
> Personally, I care more about the quality of reviews than the quantity. That
> said, I understand that we have a small number of core reviewers relative to
> the number of open reviews in Nova (~650-700 open reviews most days) and
> agree with Dan Smith that 2 reviews per day doesn't sound like too much of a
> hurdle for core reviewers.
>
> The reason I think it's important to keep Padraig as a core is that he has
> done considerate, thoughtful code reviews, albeit in a smaller quantity. By
> saying we only look at the number of reviews in our estimation of keeping
> contributors on the core team, we are incentivizing the wrong behaviour,
> IMO. We should be pushing that the thought that goes into reviews is more
> important than the sheer number of reviews.
>
> Is it critical that we get more eyeballs reviewing code? Yes, absolutely it
> is. Is it critical that we get more reviews from core reviewers as well as
> non-core reviewers. Yes, absolutely.
>
> Bottom line, we need to balance between quality and quantity, and kicking
> out a core reviewer who has quality code reviews because they don't have
> that many of them sends the wrong message, IMO.

I agree that we need to maintain the quality of reviews. What I am
instead expecting is for core reviewers to spend enough of their work
day to get two high quality reviews done. That's a very low bar.

I am trying to balance the following constraints:

 - we aren't keeping up with reviews
 - a small number of cores are doing the majority of the work
 - there have been threats of forking drivers out of the nova code
base if we don't solve this and I really don't want to see that happen

There are other things happening behind the scenes as well -- we have
a veto process for current cores when we propose a new core. It has
been made clear to me that several current core members believe we
have reached "the maximum effective size" for core, and that they will
therefore veto new additions. Therefore, we need to make room in core
for people who are able to keep up with our review workload.

You know what makes me really sad? No one has suggested that perhaps
Padraig could just pick up his review rate a little. I've repeatedly
said we can re-add reviewers if that happens.

Michael

-- 
Rackspace Australia

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Gary Kotton 


On 12/7/14, 6:41 PM, "Dan Smith"  wrote:

>> I'm going to be honest and say I'm confused here.
>> 
>> We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
>> reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
>> a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
>> reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
>> from a core.
>> 
>> Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement?
>
>Please, no. A small set of nova-core does most of the reviews right now
>anyway. Honestly, I feel like two a day is a *really* low bar,
>especially given how much time I put into it. We need to be doing more
>reviews all around, which to me means a *higher* expectation at the low
>end, if anything.

+1 - well said!

>
>--Dan
>


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Nikola Đipanov 
On 12/07/2014 06:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 12/07/2014 04:19 AM, Michael Still wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Gary Kotton  wrote:
>>> On 12/6/14, 7:42 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
 -1 on pixelbeat, since he's been active in reviews on
 various things AFAICT in the last 60-90 days and seems to be still a
 considerate reviewer in various areas.
>>>
>>> I agree -1 for Padraig
>>
>> I'm going to be honest and say I'm confused here.
>>
>> We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
>> reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
>> a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
>> reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
>> from a core.
>>
>> Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement? If
>> so, how do we balance that with the widespread complaints that core
>> isn't keeping up with its workload? We could add more people to core,
>> but there is also a maximum practical size to the group if we're going
>> to keep everyone on the same page, especially when the less active
>> cores don't generally turn up to our IRC meetings and are therefore
>> more "expensive" to keep up to date.
>>
>> How can we say we are doing our best to keep up with the incoming
>> review workload if all reviewers aren't doing at least the minimum
>> level of reviews?
> 
> Personally, I care more about the quality of reviews than the quantity.
> That said, I understand that we have a small number of core reviewers
> relative to the number of open reviews in Nova (~650-700 open reviews
> most days) and agree with Dan Smith that 2 reviews per day doesn't sound
> like too much of a hurdle for core reviewers.
> 
> The reason I think it's important to keep Padraig as a core is that he
> has done considerate, thoughtful code reviews, albeit in a smaller
> quantity. By saying we only look at the number of reviews in our
> estimation of keeping contributors on the core team, we are
> incentivizing the wrong behaviour, IMO. We should be pushing that the
> thought that goes into reviews is more important than the sheer number
> of reviews.
> 
> Is it critical that we get more eyeballs reviewing code? Yes, absolutely
> it is. Is it critical that we get more reviews from core reviewers as
> well as non-core reviewers. Yes, absolutely.
> 
> Bottom line, we need to balance between quality and quantity, and
> kicking out a core reviewer who has quality code reviews because they
> don't have that many of them sends the wrong message, IMO.
> 

I could not *possibly* agree more with everything Jay wrote above!

Quality should always win! And 2 reviews a day is a nice approximation
of what is expected but we should not have any number as a hard
requirement. It's lazy (in addition to sending the wrong message) and we
_need_ to be better than that!

Slightly off-topic - since we're so into numbers - Russell's statistics
were at one point showing the ratio between reviews given and reviews
received. I tend to be wary of people reviewing without writing any code
themselves, as they tend to lose touch with the actual constraints the
code is written under in different parts of Nova. This is especially
important when reviewing larger feature branches or more complicated
refactoring (a big part of what we want to prioritize in Kilo).

As any number - that one is also never going to tell the whole story,
and should not ever become a hard rule - but I for one would be
interested to see it.

N.

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Jay Pipes 

On 12/07/2014 04:19 AM, Michael Still wrote:

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Gary Kotton  wrote:

On 12/6/14, 7:42 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:


[snip]


-1 on pixelbeat, since he's been active in reviews on
various things AFAICT in the last 60-90 days and seems to be still a
considerate reviewer in various areas.


I agree -1 for Padraig


I'm going to be honest and say I'm confused here.

We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
from a core.

Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement? If
so, how do we balance that with the widespread complaints that core
isn't keeping up with its workload? We could add more people to core,
but there is also a maximum practical size to the group if we're going
to keep everyone on the same page, especially when the less active
cores don't generally turn up to our IRC meetings and are therefore
more "expensive" to keep up to date.

How can we say we are doing our best to keep up with the incoming
review workload if all reviewers aren't doing at least the minimum
level of reviews?


Personally, I care more about the quality of reviews than the quantity. 
That said, I understand that we have a small number of core reviewers 
relative to the number of open reviews in Nova (~650-700 open reviews 
most days) and agree with Dan Smith that 2 reviews per day doesn't sound 
like too much of a hurdle for core reviewers.


The reason I think it's important to keep Padraig as a core is that he 
has done considerate, thoughtful code reviews, albeit in a smaller 
quantity. By saying we only look at the number of reviews in our 
estimation of keeping contributors on the core team, we are 
incentivizing the wrong behaviour, IMO. We should be pushing that the 
thought that goes into reviews is more important than the sheer number 
of reviews.


Is it critical that we get more eyeballs reviewing code? Yes, absolutely 
it is. Is it critical that we get more reviews from core reviewers as 
well as non-core reviewers. Yes, absolutely.


Bottom line, we need to balance between quality and quantity, and 
kicking out a core reviewer who has quality code reviews because they 
don't have that many of them sends the wrong message, IMO.


Best,
-jay

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Dan Smith 
> I'm going to be honest and say I'm confused here.
> 
> We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
> reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
> a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
> reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
> from a core.
> 
> Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement?

Please, no. A small set of nova-core does most of the reviews right now
anyway. Honestly, I feel like two a day is a *really* low bar,
especially given how much time I put into it. We need to be doing more
reviews all around, which to me means a *higher* expectation at the low
end, if anything.

--Dan



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Gary Kotton 
Please see http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/nova-group/90. If
we are following the average of 2 reviews per day then proposed list
should be updated.

On 12/7/14, 11:19 AM, "Michael Still"  wrote:

>On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Gary Kotton  wrote:
>> On 12/6/14, 7:42 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>-1 on pixelbeat, since he's been active in reviews on
>>>various things AFAICT in the last 60-90 days and seems to be still a
>>>considerate reviewer in various areas.
>>
>> I agree -1 for Padraig
>
>I'm going to be honest and say I'm confused here.
>
>We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
>reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
>a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
>reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
>from a core.
>
>Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement? If
>so, how do we balance that with the widespread complaints that core
>isn't keeping up with its workload? We could add more people to core,
>but there is also a maximum practical size to the group if we're going
>to keep everyone on the same page, especially when the less active
>cores don't generally turn up to our IRC meetings and are therefore
>more "expensive" to keep up to date.
>
>How can we say we are doing our best to keep up with the incoming
>review workload if all reviewers aren't doing at least the minimum
>level of reviews?
>
>Michael
>
>-- 
>Rackspace Australia
>
>___
>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] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Michael Still 
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Gary Kotton  wrote:
> On 12/6/14, 7:42 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:

[snip]

>>-1 on pixelbeat, since he's been active in reviews on
>>various things AFAICT in the last 60-90 days and seems to be still a
>>considerate reviewer in various areas.
>
> I agree -1 for Padraig

I'm going to be honest and say I'm confused here.

We've always said we expect cores to maintain an average of two
reviews per day. That's not new, nor a rule created by me. Padraig is
a great guy, but has been working on other things -- he's done 60
reviews in the last 60 days -- which is about half of what we expect
from a core.

Are we talking about removing the two reviews a day requirement? If
so, how do we balance that with the widespread complaints that core
isn't keeping up with its workload? We could add more people to core,
but there is also a maximum practical size to the group if we're going
to keep everyone on the same page, especially when the less active
cores don't generally turn up to our IRC meetings and are therefore
more "expensive" to keep up to date.

How can we say we are doing our best to keep up with the incoming
review workload if all reviewers aren't doing at least the minimum
level of reviews?

Michael

-- 
Rackspace Australia

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-07 Thread Gary Kotton 
I agree -1 for Padraig

On 12/6/14, 7:42 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:

>On 12/04/2014 04:05 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>> One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
>> reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
>> thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
>> parts of OpenStack.
>>
>> However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
>> keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
>> Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
>> from the nova-core group.
>>
>> I¹d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the
>>years:
>>
>> * cbehrens: Chris Behrens
>> * vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
>> * dan-prince: Dan Prince
>> * belliott: Brian Elliott
>> * p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
>
>+1 on Chris, Dan, Vish and Brian, who I believe have all moved on to new
>adventures. -1 on pixelbeat, since he's been active in reviews on
>various things AFAICT in the last 60-90 days and seems to be still a
>considerate reviewer in various areas.
>
>Best,
>-jay
>
>
>___
>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] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-06 Thread Jay Pipes 

On 12/04/2014 04:05 PM, Michael Still wrote:

One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
parts of OpenStack.

However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
from the nova-core group.

I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the years:

* cbehrens: Chris Behrens
* vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
* dan-prince: Dan Prince
* belliott: Brian Elliott
* p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady


+1 on Chris, Dan, Vish and Brian, who I believe have all moved on to new 
adventures. -1 on pixelbeat, since he's been active in reviews on 
various things AFAICT in the last 60-90 days and seems to be still a 
considerate reviewer in various areas.


Best,
-jay


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Michael Still 
I used Russell's 60 day stats in making this decision. I can't find a
documented historical precedent on what period the stats should be
generated over, however 60 days seems entirely reasonable to me.

2014-12-05 15:41:11.212927

Reviews for the last 60 days in nova
** -- nova-core team member
+-+---++
|   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- %
| Disagreements* |
+-+---++
| berrange ** | 669   13 134   1 521 19478.0%
|   47 (  7.0%)  |
|   jogo **   | 431   38 161   2 230 11753.8%
|   19 (  4.4%)  |
|  oomichi ** | 3091 106   4 198  5865.4%
|3 (  1.0%)  |
|   danms **  | 293   34 133  15 111  4343.0%
|   12 (  4.1%)  |
| jaypipes ** | 290   10 108  14 158  4259.3%
|   15 (  5.2%)  |
| ndipanov ** | 192   10  78   6  98  2454.2%
|   24 ( 12.5%)  |
|  klmitch ** | 1901  22   0 167  1287.9%
|   21 ( 11.1%)  |
|  cyeoh-0 ** | 1840  70  10 104  4162.0%
|9 (  4.9%)  |
|  mriedem ** | 1733  86   8  76  3148.6%
|8 (  4.6%)  |
|johngarbutt **   | 164   19  79   6  60  2440.2%
|7 (  4.3%)  |
| cerberus ** | 1510   9  40 102  3894.0%
|7 (  4.6%)  |
|mikalstill **| 1452   8   1 134  4893.1%
|3 (  2.1%)  |
|  alaski **  | 1040   7   6  91  5493.3%
|5 (  4.8%)  |
|  sdague **  |  986  21   2  69  4072.4%
|4 (  4.1%)  |
| russellb ** |  861  10   0  75  2987.2%
|5 (  5.8%)  |
|   p-draigbrady **   |  600  12   1  47  1080.0%
|4 (  6.7%)  |
| belliott ** |  320   8   1  23  1575.0%
|4 ( 12.5%)  |
|vishvananda **   |   80   2   0   6   175.0%
|2 ( 25.0%)  |
|dan-prince **|   70   0   0   7   3   100.0%
|4 ( 57.1%)  |
| cbehrens ** |   40   2   0   2   050.0%
|1 ( 25.0%)  |

The previously held standard for core reviewer activity has been an
_average_ of two reviews per day, which is why I used the 60 days
stats (to eliminate vacations and so forth). It should be noted that
the top ten or so reviewers are doing at lot more than that.

All of the reviewers I dropped are valued members of the team, and I
am sad to see all of them go. However, it is important that reviewers
remain active.

It should also be noted that with the exception of one person (who
hasn't been under discussion in this thread) I discussed doing this
will all of these people on 12 June 2014. This was not a sudden move,
and shouldn't be a surprise to the reviewers involved.

One final point to reiterate -- we have always said as a project that
former cores can be re-added if their review rate picks up again. This
isn't a punishment, its a recognition that those people have gone off
to work on other things and that nova is no longer their focus. I'd
welcome an increased review rate from all involved.

Michael

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Russell Bryant  wrote:
> On 12/05/2014 08:41 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:05:28AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
>>> One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
>>> reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
>>> thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
>>> parts of OpenStack.
>>>
>>> However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
>>> keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
>>> Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
>>> from the nova-core group.
>>>
>>> I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the 
>>> years:
>>>
>>> * cbehrens: Chris Behrens
>>> * vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
>>> * dan-prince: Dan Prince
>>> * belliott: Brian Elliott
>>> * p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
>>>
>>> I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
>>> time for code reviews increases.
>>
>> What stats did you use to decide whether to cull these reviewers ? Looking
>> at the stats over a 6 month period, I think Padraig Brady is still having
>> a significant positive impact on Nova - on a par with both cerberus and
>> alaski who you've not proposing for cut. I think we should keep Padraig
>> on the team, but probably suggest cutting Markmc instead
>>
>>   http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-reviewers-180.txt
>>
>> +-+++
>> |   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Joe Gordon 
On Dec 5, 2014 11:39 AM, "Russell Bryant"  wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2014 11:23 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> > As you are more then aware of, our policy for removing people from core
> > is to leave that up the the PTL (I believe you wrote that) [0]. And I
> > don't think numbers alone are a good metric for sorting out who to
> > remove.  That being said no matter what happens, with our fast track
> > policy, if pbrady is dropped it shouldn't be hard to re-add him.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of and not questioning the policy.  Usually drops are
> pretty obvious.  This one wasn't.  It seems reasonable to discuss.
> Maybe we don't have a common set of expectations.  Anyway, I'll follow
> up in private.
>

Agreed

> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> ___
> 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] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Russell Bryant 
On 12/05/2014 11:23 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> As you are more then aware of, our policy for removing people from core
> is to leave that up the the PTL (I believe you wrote that) [0]. And I
> don't think numbers alone are a good metric for sorting out who to
> remove.  That being said no matter what happens, with our fast track
> policy, if pbrady is dropped it shouldn't be hard to re-add him.

Yes, I'm aware of and not questioning the policy.  Usually drops are
pretty obvious.  This one wasn't.  It seems reasonable to discuss.
Maybe we don't have a common set of expectations.  Anyway, I'll follow
up in private.

-- 
Russell Bryant

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Joe Gordon 
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Russell Bryant  wrote:

> On 12/05/2014 08:41 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:05:28AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> >> One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
> >> reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
> >> thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
> >> parts of OpenStack.
> >>
> >> However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
> >> keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
> >> Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
> >> from the nova-core group.
> >>
> >> I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the
> years:
> >>
> >> * cbehrens: Chris Behrens
> >> * vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
> >> * dan-prince: Dan Prince
> >> * belliott: Brian Elliott
> >> * p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
> >>
> >> I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
> >> time for code reviews increases.
> >
> > What stats did you use to decide whether to cull these reviewers ?
> Looking
> > at the stats over a 6 month period, I think Padraig Brady is still having
> > a significant positive impact on Nova - on a par with both cerberus and
> > alaski who you've not proposing for cut. I think we should keep Padraig
> > on the team, but probably suggest cutting Markmc instead
> >
> >   http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-reviewers-180.txt
> >
> >
> +-+++
> > |   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- %  |
> Disagreements* |
> >
> +-+++
> > | berrange ** |1766   26 435  12 1293 35773.9%
> |  157 (  8.9%)  |
> > | jaypipes ** |1359   11 378 436 534 13371.4%
> |  109 (  8.0%)  |
> > |   jogo **   |1053  131 326   7 589 35356.6%
> |   47 (  4.5%)  |
> > |   danms **  | 921   67 381  23 450 16751.4%
> |   32 (  3.5%)  |
> > |  oomichi ** | 8894 306  55 524 18265.1%
> |   40 (  4.5%)  |
> > |johngarbutt **   | 808  319 227  10 252 14532.4%
> |   37 (  4.6%)  |
> > |  mriedem ** | 642   27 279  25 311 13652.3%
> |   17 (  2.6%)  |
> > |  klmitch ** | 6061  90   2 513  7085.0%
> |   67 ( 11.1%)  |
> > | ndipanov ** | 588   19 179  10 380 11366.3%
> |   62 ( 10.5%)  |
> > |mikalstill **| 564   31  34   3 496 20788.5%
> |   20 (  3.5%)  |
> > |  cyeoh-0 ** | 546   12 207  30 297 10359.9%
> |   35 (  6.4%)  |
> > |  sdague **  | 511   23  89   6 393 22978.1%
> |   25 (  4.9%)  |
> > | russellb ** | 4656  83   0 376 15880.9%
> |   23 (  4.9%)  |
> > |  alaski **  | 4151  65  21 328 14984.1%
> |   24 (  5.8%)  |
> > | cerberus ** | 4056  25  48 326 10292.3%
> |   33 (  8.1%)  |
> > |   p-draigbrady **   | 3762  40   9 325  6488.8%
> |   49 ( 13.0%)  |
> > |  markmc **  | 2432  54   3 184  6977.0%
> |   14 (  5.8%)  |
> > | belliott ** | 2311  68   5 157  3570.1%
> |   19 (  8.2%)  |
> > |dan-prince **| 1782  48   9 119  2971.9%
> |   11 (  6.2%)  |
> > | cbehrens ** | 1322  49   2  79  1961.4%
> |6 (  4.5%)  |
> > |vishvananda **   |  540   5   3  46  1590.7%
> |5 (  9.3%)  |
> >
>
> Yeah, I was pretty surprised to see pbrady on this list, as well.  The
> above was 6 months, but even if you drop it to the most recent 3 months,
> he's still active ...
>

As you are more then aware of, our policy for removing people from core is
to leave that up the the PTL (I believe you wrote that) [0]. And I don't
think numbers alone are a good metric for sorting out who to remove.  That
being said no matter what happens, with our fast track policy, if pbrady is
dropped it shouldn't be hard to re-add him.


[0]
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/CoreTeam#Adding_or_Removing_Members



>
>
> > Reviews for the last 90 days in nova
> > ** -- nova-core team member
> >
> +-+---++
> > |   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- % |
> Disagreements* |
> >
> +-+---++
> > | berrange ** | 708   13 145   1 549 20077.7% |
>  47 (  6.6%)  |
> > |   jogo **   | 594   40 218   4 332 17456

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Russell Bryant 
On 12/05/2014 08:41 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:05:28AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
>> One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
>> reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
>> thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
>> parts of OpenStack.
>>
>> However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
>> keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
>> Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
>> from the nova-core group.
>>
>> I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the 
>> years:
>>
>> * cbehrens: Chris Behrens
>> * vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
>> * dan-prince: Dan Prince
>> * belliott: Brian Elliott
>> * p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
>>
>> I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
>> time for code reviews increases.
> 
> What stats did you use to decide whether to cull these reviewers ? Looking
> at the stats over a 6 month period, I think Padraig Brady is still having
> a significant positive impact on Nova - on a par with both cerberus and
> alaski who you've not proposing for cut. I think we should keep Padraig
> on the team, but probably suggest cutting Markmc instead
> 
>   http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-reviewers-180.txt
> 
> +-+++
> |   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- %  | 
> Disagreements* |
> +-+++
> | berrange ** |1766   26 435  12 1293 35773.9% |  157 
> (  8.9%)  |
> | jaypipes ** |1359   11 378 436 534 13371.4%  |  109 
> (  8.0%)  |
> |   jogo **   |1053  131 326   7 589 35356.6%  |   47 
> (  4.5%)  |
> |   danms **  | 921   67 381  23 450 16751.4%  |   32 
> (  3.5%)  |
> |  oomichi ** | 8894 306  55 524 18265.1%  |   40 
> (  4.5%)  |
> |johngarbutt **   | 808  319 227  10 252 14532.4%  |   37 
> (  4.6%)  |
> |  mriedem ** | 642   27 279  25 311 13652.3%  |   17 
> (  2.6%)  |
> |  klmitch ** | 6061  90   2 513  7085.0%  |   67 
> ( 11.1%)  |
> | ndipanov ** | 588   19 179  10 380 11366.3%  |   62 
> ( 10.5%)  |
> |mikalstill **| 564   31  34   3 496 20788.5%  |   20 
> (  3.5%)  |
> |  cyeoh-0 ** | 546   12 207  30 297 10359.9%  |   35 
> (  6.4%)  |
> |  sdague **  | 511   23  89   6 393 22978.1%  |   25 
> (  4.9%)  |
> | russellb ** | 4656  83   0 376 15880.9%  |   23 
> (  4.9%)  |
> |  alaski **  | 4151  65  21 328 14984.1%  |   24 
> (  5.8%)  |
> | cerberus ** | 4056  25  48 326 10292.3%  |   33 
> (  8.1%)  |
> |   p-draigbrady **   | 3762  40   9 325  6488.8%  |   49 
> ( 13.0%)  |
> |  markmc **  | 2432  54   3 184  6977.0%  |   14 
> (  5.8%)  |
> | belliott ** | 2311  68   5 157  3570.1%  |   19 
> (  8.2%)  |
> |dan-prince **| 1782  48   9 119  2971.9%  |   11 
> (  6.2%)  |
> | cbehrens ** | 1322  49   2  79  1961.4%  |6 
> (  4.5%)  |
> |vishvananda **   |  540   5   3  46  1590.7%  |5 
> (  9.3%)  |
> 

Yeah, I was pretty surprised to see pbrady on this list, as well.  The
above was 6 months, but even if you drop it to the most recent 3 months,
he's still active ...


> Reviews for the last 90 days in nova
> ** -- nova-core team member
> +-+---++
> |   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- % | 
> Disagreements* |
> +-+---++
> | berrange ** | 708   13 145   1 549 20077.7% |   47 
> (  6.6%)  |
> |   jogo **   | 594   40 218   4 332 17456.6% |   27 
> (  4.5%)  |
> | jaypipes ** | 509   10 180  17 302  7762.7% |   33 
> (  6.5%)  |
> |  oomichi ** | 3921 136  10 245  7465.1% |6 
> (  1.5%)  |
> |   danms **  | 386   38 155  16 177  7750.0% |   16 
> (  4.1%)  |
> | ndipanov ** | 345   17 118   7 203  6160.9% |   32 
> (  9.3%)  |
> |  mriedem ** | 304   12 136  12 144  5651.3% |   12 
> (  3.9%)  |
> |  klmitch ** | 2811  42   0 238  1984.7% |   32 
> ( 11.4%)  |
> |  cyeoh-0 ** | 270   11 112  12 135  47

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Brant Knudson 
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Daniel P. Berrange 
wrote:

>
> > FWIW, markmc is already off the list [1].
>
> Ah yes, must be that russell needs to update the config file for his script
> to stop marking markmc as core.
>
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
> --
>


Anyone can do it: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/139637/

 - Brant



> |: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/
> :|
> |: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org
> :|
> |: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/
> :|
> |: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc
> :|
>
> ___
> 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] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Daniel P. Berrange 
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 07:44:24AM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/5/2014 7:41 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:05:28AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> >>One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
> >>reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
> >>thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
> >>parts of OpenStack.
> >>
> >>However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
> >>keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
> >>Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
> >>from the nova-core group.
> >>
> >>I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the 
> >>years:
> >>
> >>* cbehrens: Chris Behrens
> >>* vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
> >>* dan-prince: Dan Prince
> >>* belliott: Brian Elliott
> >>* p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
> >>
> >>I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
> >>time for code reviews increases.
> >
> >What stats did you use to decide whether to cull these reviewers ? Looking
> >at the stats over a 6 month period, I think Padraig Brady is still having
> >a significant positive impact on Nova - on a par with both cerberus and
> >alaski who you've not proposing for cut. I think we should keep Padraig
> >on the team, but probably suggest cutting Markmc instead
> >
> >   http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-reviewers-180.txt
> >
> >+-+++
> >|   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- %  | 
> >Disagreements* |
> >+-+++
> >| berrange ** |1766   26 435  12 1293 35773.9% |  
> >157 (  8.9%)  |
> >| jaypipes ** |1359   11 378 436 534 13371.4%  |  
> >109 (  8.0%)  |
> >|   jogo **   |1053  131 326   7 589 35356.6%  |   
> >47 (  4.5%)  |
> >|   danms **  | 921   67 381  23 450 16751.4%  |   
> >32 (  3.5%)  |
> >|  oomichi ** | 8894 306  55 524 18265.1%  |   
> >40 (  4.5%)  |
> >|johngarbutt **   | 808  319 227  10 252 14532.4%  |   
> >37 (  4.6%)  |
> >|  mriedem ** | 642   27 279  25 311 13652.3%  |   
> >17 (  2.6%)  |
> >|  klmitch ** | 6061  90   2 513  7085.0%  |   
> >67 ( 11.1%)  |
> >| ndipanov ** | 588   19 179  10 380 11366.3%  |   
> >62 ( 10.5%)  |
> >|mikalstill **| 564   31  34   3 496 20788.5%  |   
> >20 (  3.5%)  |
> >|  cyeoh-0 ** | 546   12 207  30 297 10359.9%  |   
> >35 (  6.4%)  |
> >|  sdague **  | 511   23  89   6 393 22978.1%  |   
> >25 (  4.9%)  |
> >| russellb ** | 4656  83   0 376 15880.9%  |   
> >23 (  4.9%)  |
> >|  alaski **  | 4151  65  21 328 14984.1%  |   
> >24 (  5.8%)  |
> >| cerberus ** | 4056  25  48 326 10292.3%  |   
> >33 (  8.1%)  |
> >|   p-draigbrady **   | 3762  40   9 325  6488.8%  |   
> >49 ( 13.0%)  |
> >|  markmc **  | 2432  54   3 184  6977.0%  |   
> >14 (  5.8%)  |
> >| belliott ** | 2311  68   5 157  3570.1%  |   
> >19 (  8.2%)  |
> >|dan-prince **| 1782  48   9 119  2971.9%  |   
> >11 (  6.2%)  |
> >| cbehrens ** | 1322  49   2  79  1961.4%  |
> >6 (  4.5%)  |
> >|vishvananda **   |  540   5   3  46  1590.7%  |
> >5 (  9.3%)  |
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Daniel
> >
> 
> FWIW, markmc is already off the list [1].

Ah yes, must be that russell needs to update the config file for his script
to stop marking markmc as core.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui 
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:41:59PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:05:28AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> > One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
> > reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
> > thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
> > parts of OpenStack.
> > 
> > However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
> > keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
> > Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
> > from the nova-core group.
> > 
> > I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the 
> > years:
> > 
> > * cbehrens: Chris Behrens
> > * vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
> > * dan-prince: Dan Prince
> > * belliott: Brian Elliott
> > * p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
> > 
> > I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
> > time for code reviews increases.
> 
> What stats did you use to decide whether to cull these reviewers ? Looking
> at the stats over a 6 month period, I think Padraig Brady is still having
> a significant positive impact on Nova - on a par with both cerberus and
> alaski who you've not proposing for cut. I think we should keep Padraig
> on the team, but probably suggest cutting Markmc instead
> 
>   http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-reviewers-180.txt
> 
> +-+++
> |   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- %  | 
> Disagreements* |
> +-+++
> | berrange ** |1766   26 435  12 1293 35773.9% |  157 
> (  8.9%)  |
> | jaypipes ** |1359   11 378 436 534 13371.4%  |  109 
> (  8.0%)  |
> |   jogo **   |1053  131 326   7 589 35356.6%  |   47 
> (  4.5%)  |
> |   danms **  | 921   67 381  23 450 16751.4%  |   32 
> (  3.5%)  |
> |  oomichi ** | 8894 306  55 524 18265.1%  |   40 
> (  4.5%)  |
> |johngarbutt **   | 808  319 227  10 252 14532.4%  |   37 
> (  4.6%)  |
> |  mriedem ** | 642   27 279  25 311 13652.3%  |   17 
> (  2.6%)  |
> |  klmitch ** | 6061  90   2 513  7085.0%  |   67 
> ( 11.1%)  |
> | ndipanov ** | 588   19 179  10 380 11366.3%  |   62 
> ( 10.5%)  |
> |mikalstill **| 564   31  34   3 496 20788.5%  |   20 
> (  3.5%)  |
> |  cyeoh-0 ** | 546   12 207  30 297 10359.9%  |   35 
> (  6.4%)  |
> |  sdague **  | 511   23  89   6 393 22978.1%  |   25 
> (  4.9%)  |
> | russellb ** | 4656  83   0 376 15880.9%  |   23 
> (  4.9%)  |
> |  alaski **  | 4151  65  21 328 14984.1%  |   24 
> (  5.8%)  |
> | cerberus ** | 4056  25  48 326 10292.3%  |   33 
> (  8.1%)  |
> |   p-draigbrady **   | 3762  40   9 325  6488.8%  |   49 
> ( 13.0%)  |
> |  markmc **  | 2432  54   3 184  6977.0%  |   14 
> (  5.8%)  |
> | belliott ** | 2311  68   5 157  3570.1%  |   19 
> (  8.2%)  |
> |dan-prince **| 1782  48   9 119  2971.9%  |   11 
> (  6.2%)  |
> | cbehrens ** | 1322  49   2  79  1961.4%  |6 
> (  4.5%)  |
> |vishvananda **   |  540   5   3  46  1590.7%  |5 
> (  9.3%)  |
> 

+1

Padraig gave to us several robust reviews on important topics. Lose him
will make more difficult the work on nova.

s.

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Nikola Đipanov 
On 12/05/2014 01:05 AM, Michael Still wrote:
> One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
> reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
> thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
> parts of OpenStack.
> 
> However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
> keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
> Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
> from the nova-core group.
> 
> I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the years:
> 
> * cbehrens: Chris Behrens
> * vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
> * dan-prince: Dan Prince
> * belliott: Brian Elliott
> * p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
> 

I am personally -1 on Padraig and Vish, especially Padraig. As one of
the coreutils maintainers - his contribution to Nova is invaluable
regardless whatever metrics you apply to his reviews makes him appear on
this list (hint - quality should really be the only one). Removing him
from core will probably not affect that, but I personally definitely
trust him to not vote +2 on the stuff he is not in touch with, and view
his +2 when I see them as a sign of thorough reviews. Also he has not
exactly been inactive lately by any measure.

Vish has not been active for some time now, but he is on IRC and in the
community still (as opposed to Chris for example), so not sure why do
this now.

N.


> I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
> time for code reviews increases.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> 


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Matt Riedemann 



On 12/5/2014 7:41 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:05:28AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:

One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
parts of OpenStack.

However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
from the nova-core group.

I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the years:

* cbehrens: Chris Behrens
* vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
* dan-prince: Dan Prince
* belliott: Brian Elliott
* p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady

I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
time for code reviews increases.


What stats did you use to decide whether to cull these reviewers ? Looking
at the stats over a 6 month period, I think Padraig Brady is still having
a significant positive impact on Nova - on a par with both cerberus and
alaski who you've not proposing for cut. I think we should keep Padraig
on the team, but probably suggest cutting Markmc instead

   http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-reviewers-180.txt

+-+++
|   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- %  | 
Disagreements* |
+-+++
| berrange ** |1766   26 435  12 1293 35773.9% |  157 ( 
 8.9%)  |
| jaypipes ** |1359   11 378 436 534 13371.4%  |  109 ( 
 8.0%)  |
|   jogo **   |1053  131 326   7 589 35356.6%  |   47 ( 
 4.5%)  |
|   danms **  | 921   67 381  23 450 16751.4%  |   32 ( 
 3.5%)  |
|  oomichi ** | 8894 306  55 524 18265.1%  |   40 ( 
 4.5%)  |
|johngarbutt **   | 808  319 227  10 252 14532.4%  |   37 ( 
 4.6%)  |
|  mriedem ** | 642   27 279  25 311 13652.3%  |   17 ( 
 2.6%)  |
|  klmitch ** | 6061  90   2 513  7085.0%  |   67 ( 
11.1%)  |
| ndipanov ** | 588   19 179  10 380 11366.3%  |   62 ( 
10.5%)  |
|mikalstill **| 564   31  34   3 496 20788.5%  |   20 ( 
 3.5%)  |
|  cyeoh-0 ** | 546   12 207  30 297 10359.9%  |   35 ( 
 6.4%)  |
|  sdague **  | 511   23  89   6 393 22978.1%  |   25 ( 
 4.9%)  |
| russellb ** | 4656  83   0 376 15880.9%  |   23 ( 
 4.9%)  |
|  alaski **  | 4151  65  21 328 14984.1%  |   24 ( 
 5.8%)  |
| cerberus ** | 4056  25  48 326 10292.3%  |   33 ( 
 8.1%)  |
|   p-draigbrady **   | 3762  40   9 325  6488.8%  |   49 ( 
13.0%)  |
|  markmc **  | 2432  54   3 184  6977.0%  |   14 ( 
 5.8%)  |
| belliott ** | 2311  68   5 157  3570.1%  |   19 ( 
 8.2%)  |
|dan-prince **| 1782  48   9 119  2971.9%  |   11 ( 
 6.2%)  |
| cbehrens ** | 1322  49   2  79  1961.4%  |6 ( 
 4.5%)  |
|vishvananda **   |  540   5   3  46  1590.7%  |5 ( 
 9.3%)  |


Regards,
Daniel



FWIW, markmc is already off the list [1].

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/25,members

--

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Spring cleaning nova-core

2014-12-05 Thread Daniel P. Berrange 
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:05:28AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> One of the things that happens over time is that some of our core
> reviewers move on to other projects. This is a normal and healthy
> thing, especially as nova continues to spin out projects into other
> parts of OpenStack.
> 
> However, it is important that our core reviewers be active, as it
> keeps them up to date with the current ways we approach development in
> Nova. I am therefore removing some no longer sufficiently active cores
> from the nova-core group.
> 
> I’d like to thank the following people for their contributions over the years:
> 
> * cbehrens: Chris Behrens
> * vishvananda: Vishvananda Ishaya
> * dan-prince: Dan Prince
> * belliott: Brian Elliott
> * p-draigbrady: Padraig Brady
> 
> I’d love to see any of these cores return if they find their available
> time for code reviews increases.

What stats did you use to decide whether to cull these reviewers ? Looking
at the stats over a 6 month period, I think Padraig Brady is still having
a significant positive impact on Nova - on a par with both cerberus and
alaski who you've not proposing for cut. I think we should keep Padraig
on the team, but probably suggest cutting Markmc instead

  http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-reviewers-180.txt

+-+++
|   Reviewer  | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- %  | 
Disagreements* |
+-+++
| berrange ** |1766   26 435  12 1293 35773.9% |  157 ( 
 8.9%)  |
| jaypipes ** |1359   11 378 436 534 13371.4%  |  109 ( 
 8.0%)  |
|   jogo **   |1053  131 326   7 589 35356.6%  |   47 ( 
 4.5%)  |
|   danms **  | 921   67 381  23 450 16751.4%  |   32 ( 
 3.5%)  |
|  oomichi ** | 8894 306  55 524 18265.1%  |   40 ( 
 4.5%)  |
|johngarbutt **   | 808  319 227  10 252 14532.4%  |   37 ( 
 4.6%)  |
|  mriedem ** | 642   27 279  25 311 13652.3%  |   17 ( 
 2.6%)  |
|  klmitch ** | 6061  90   2 513  7085.0%  |   67 ( 
11.1%)  |
| ndipanov ** | 588   19 179  10 380 11366.3%  |   62 ( 
10.5%)  |
|mikalstill **| 564   31  34   3 496 20788.5%  |   20 ( 
 3.5%)  |
|  cyeoh-0 ** | 546   12 207  30 297 10359.9%  |   35 ( 
 6.4%)  |
|  sdague **  | 511   23  89   6 393 22978.1%  |   25 ( 
 4.9%)  |
| russellb ** | 4656  83   0 376 15880.9%  |   23 ( 
 4.9%)  |
|  alaski **  | 4151  65  21 328 14984.1%  |   24 ( 
 5.8%)  |
| cerberus ** | 4056  25  48 326 10292.3%  |   33 ( 
 8.1%)  |
|   p-draigbrady **   | 3762  40   9 325  6488.8%  |   49 ( 
13.0%)  |
|  markmc **  | 2432  54   3 184  6977.0%  |   14 ( 
 5.8%)  |
| belliott ** | 2311  68   5 157  3570.1%  |   19 ( 
 8.2%)  |
|dan-prince **| 1782  48   9 119  2971.9%  |   11 ( 
 6.2%)  |
| cbehrens ** | 1322  49   2  79  1961.4%  |6 ( 
 4.5%)  |
|vishvananda **   |  540   5   3  46  1590.7%  |5 ( 
 9.3%)  |


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev