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
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 prov
4
> > 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 ch
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Dobies [mailto:jason.dob...@redhat.com]
> 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
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 blam
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 c
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 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 co
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
>
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 wrote:
On 9/3/14 10:43 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2014-09-03 11:51:13 +1200 (+12
We would benefit a great deal from having this sooner.
On 3 September 2014 20:11, Joshua Hesketh wrote:
> 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
>>>
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 (
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 12:58 +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 14 August 2014 11:03, 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.
On 14 August 2014 11:03, 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
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 use
On 16 August 2014 02:43, Jeremy Stanley 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 a single
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 pu
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 revision
without -1 or -2". I've included some his
19 matches
Mail list logo
