On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:33 PM, melanie witt <melwi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Howdy everyone,
We've been experimenting with a new process this cycle, Review
Runways [1] and we're about at the middle of the cycle now as we had
the r-2 milestone last week June 7.
I wanted to start a thread and gather thoughts and feedback from the
nova community about how they think runways have been working or not
working and lend any suggestions to change or improve as we continue
on in the rocky cycle.
We decided to try the runways process to increase the chances of core
reviewers converging on the same changes and thus increasing reviews
and merges on approved blueprint work. As of today, we have 69
blueprints approved and 28 blueprints completed, we just passed r-2
June 7 and r-3 is July 26 and rc1 is August 9 [2].
Do people feel like they've been receiving more review on their
blueprints? Does it seem like we're completing more blueprints
earlier? Is there feedback or suggestions for change that you can
share?
Looking at the Queens burndown chart from Matt [3] we had 11 completed
bps at Queens milestone 2. So having 28 completed bps at R-2 means a
really nice improvement on our bp completion rate. I think the runaways
process contributed to this improvement.
Did runaway solve the problem that not every equally ready patch gets
equal attention from reviewers? Clearly not. But I don't think this
would be a realistic goal for runaways.
I suggest that in the future we continue the runaway process but we
also revive the priority setting process. Before runaways we had 3-4
bps agreed as priority work for a given cycle. I think we had this 3-4
bps in our head for Rocky as well we just did not write them down. I
feel this causes misunderstanding about priories, like:
a) does reviewer X has the same 3-4 bps in her/his head with priority
as in mine?
b) does something that I think part of the 3-4 priority bps has more
importance than what is in a runaway slot?
Of course when I select what to review priority is only a single factor
and there are others, like:
* Do I have knowledge about the feature? (Did I review the related
spec? Do I have knowledge in the domain or in the impacted code path?)
* Is it seems easy to review? (e.g. low complexity feature, small
patches, well written commit message)
* Is it something that feels important to me, regardless of priority
set by the community. (e.g. Do I get frequent company internal
questions about the feature? Do I have another feature that depends on
this feature as prerequisite work?)
So during the cycle it happened that I selected patches to review even
if they wasn't in a runaway slot and ignored some patches from the
runaway slots.
Cheers,
gibi
[3]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRh5glbJ44-Ru2iARidNRa7uFfn2yjiRPjHIEQOc3Fjp5YDAlcMmXkYAEFW0WNhALl010T4rzyChuO9/pubhtml?gid=128173249&single=true
Thanks all,
-melanie
[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-runways-rocky
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Rocky_Release_Schedule
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
