Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Raghavendra G
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Prashanth Pai
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Vijay Bellur
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Pranith Kumar Karampuri
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Pranith Kumar Karampuri
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Jeff Darcy
> 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 >

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Jeff Darcy
> 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

Re: [Gluster-devel] [puzzle] readv operation allocate iobuf twice

2016-07-14 Thread Zhengping Zhou
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Pranith Kumar Karampuri
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Gluster's Public Social Media Accounts

2016-07-14 Thread Vijay Bellur
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. > >

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Joe Julian
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

2016-07-14 Thread Pranith Kumar Karampuri
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] volfile init/reconfigure have been working by accident?

2016-07-14 Thread Pranith Kumar Karampuri
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] volfile init/reconfigure have been working by accident?

2016-07-14 Thread Mohammed Rafi K C
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

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Gluster Events API - Help required to identify the list of Events from each component

2016-07-14 Thread Aravinda
+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:

[Gluster-devel] Build Issues

2016-07-14 Thread Nigel Babu
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