On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
> > already merged by maintainer."
>
> I can totally understand that. I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
> and it's an *awful* demotivating
Hi,
Here are some observations from how openstack community does things:
1. Their bitregia equivalent named Stackalytics (http://stackalytics.com/) lists
contribution with *default metric being Reviews*. There are other metrics
such as
Commits, Patchsets, Person-day effort etc.
2. They
On 07/14/2016 03:39 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
already merged by maintainer."
I can totally understand that. I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
and it's an *awful* demotivating grind. On the other hand, it's also
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
> > already merged by maintainer."
>
> I can totally understand that. I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
> and it's an *awful* demotivating
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > I absolutely hate what '-1' means though, it says 'I would prefer you
> > didn't submit this'. Somebody who doesn't know what he/she is doing still
> > goes ahead and sends his/her first patch and we say 'I would prefer
> I absolutely hate what '-1' means though, it says 'I would prefer you
> didn't submit this'. Somebody who doesn't know what he/she is doing still
> goes ahead and sends his/her first patch and we say 'I would prefer you
> didn't submit this'. It is like the tool is working against more
>
> The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
> already merged by maintainer."
I can totally understand that. I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
and it's an *awful* demotivating grind. On the other hand, it's also
pretty demotivating to see one's own hard work
Could we just not support user's preset rsp buffer for function
rpc_clnt_submit, which means remove some relevant parameters of
function rpc_clnt_submit such like rsphdr, rsphdr_count, rsp_payload,
rsp_payload_count, rsp_iobref.
The reasons as follow:
1.We not only should put rsp info to
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 08:58 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
>
>> > What gets measured gets managed.
>>
>> Exactly. Reviewing is part of
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Amye Scavarda wrote:
> In an effort to expand our community reach, we're going to implement a
> few changes with the Gluster social media accounts. We've got some
> great tools that we're not using that will help us reach more people.
>
>
On 07/07/2016 08:58 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jeff Darcy > wrote:
> What gets measured gets managed.
Exactly. Reviewing is part of everyone's job, but reviews aren't
tracked
in any way
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> (combining replies to multiple people)
>
> Pranith:
> > I agree about encouraging specific kind of review. At the same time we
> need
> > to make reviewing, helping users in the community as important as sending
> > patches
The problem with approach is if partial reconfigure succeeds/fails we don't
know which keys to update and which ones to not update.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Mohammed Rafi K C
wrote:
> How about storing the same data variable(from new_xl options dict) with a
> ref in
How about storing the same data variable(from new_xl options dict) with
a ref in the options dictionary of old xlator.
Regards
Rafi KC
On 07/14/2016 08:28 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> hi,
> I wanted to remove 'get_new_dict()', 'dict_destroy()' usage
> through out the code base
+gluster-users
regards
Aravinda
On 07/13/2016 09:03 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
On 07/13/2016 10:23 AM, Aravinda wrote:
Hi,
We are working on Eventing feature for Gluster, Sent feature patch for
the same.
Design: http://review.gluster.org/13115
Patch: http://review.gluster.org/14248
Demo:
Hello folks,
You're bound to notice issues from Jenkins on any patches which needed tests
run from from yesterday (0600 UTC on 13th July 2016) until this morning (0600
UTC on 14th July 2016).
# What Happened
A lot of tests that were started during the outage were stuck in the queue.
I cleared
16 matches
Mail list logo