> -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:42 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Edison Su > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Do we need code review process for code changes > related to storage subsystem? > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:59:01PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: > > For interface/API changes, we'd better have a code review, as more > storage vendors and more developers outside Citrix are contributing code to > CloudStack storage subsystem. The code change should have less surprise > for everybody who cares about storage subsystem. > > I'm not following what you are saying Edison. What are we not doing in this > regard right now? I'm also not getting the "Citrix" point of reference here.
We don't have a code review process for each commit currently, the result of that, as the code evolving, people add more and more code, features, bug fixes etc, etc. Then maybe one month later, when you take a look at the code, which may be quite different than what you known about. So I want to add a code review process here, maybe start from storage subsystem at first. The reason I add "Citrix" here, let's take a look at what happened in the last month: Mike, from SolidFire, is asking why there is a hypervisor field in the storage pool, simply, the hypervisor field breaks his code. And I don't understand why there is a column, called dynamicallyScalable, in vm_template table. I think you will understand my problem here... > > -chip
