On 12/29/2013 03:06 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
<snip>
Basically, I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve - lets tease that
out, and then talk about how to solve it. "Backwards incompatible change
landed" might be the problem - but since every reviewer knew it, having a
longer review period is clearly not connected to solving the problem :).
That assumes that a longer review period wouldn't of allowed more reviewers to
provide input - and I'm arguing the opposite. I also think that some clear
guidelines might have led to the core reviewers holding this up for longer.
As I said in my original post, the intent to get more input was clear in the
reviews, but the period wasn't IMO long enough to make sure all the folks who
may have something to contribute could. I'd rather see some established
guidelines than have to be constantly on the lookout for changes every day or
so and hoping to catch them in time.
Honestly, there are currently 397 open reviews in Nova. I am not
convinced that waiting on this one would have come up with a better
decision. I'll given an alternative point of view of the graceful
shutdown patch, where we sat on that for months, had many iterations,
landed it, it added 25 minutes to all the test runs (which had been
hinted at sometime in month 2 of the review, but got lots in the mists
of time), and we had to revert it.
I'm not convinced more time brings more wisdom. We did take it to the
list, and there were no objections. I did tell Robert to wait because I
wanted to get those points of view. But they didn't show up. Because it
was holidays could we have waited longer? Sure. I'll take a bad on that
in feeling that Dec 19th wasn't really holidays yet because I was still
working. :) But, honestly, given no negative feedback on the thread in
question and no -1 on the review, the fact that folks like google
skipped ext3 entirely, means this review was probably landing regardless.
Every time we need to do a revert, we need to figure out how to catch it
the next time. "Humans be better" is really not a solution. So this
sounds like we need a guest compatibility test where we boot a ton of
different guests on each commit and make sure they all work. I'd whole
heartily support getting that in if someone wants to champion that.
That's really going to be the only way we have a systematic way of
knowing that we break SLES in the future.
So the net, we're all human, and sometimes make mistakes. I don't think
we're going to fix this with review policy changes, but we could with
actual CI enhancements.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
Samsung Research America
s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com
http://dague.net
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
