On 09/15/2014 05:52 PM, Brant Knudson wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Michael Still <mi...@stillhq.com
> <mailto:mi...@stillhq.com>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com
> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> > On 09/15/2014 05:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 07:07:13AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> >>> Just an observation from the last week or so...
> >>>
> >>> The biggest problem nova faces at the moment isn't code review
> latency. Our
> >>> biggest problem is failing to fix our bugs so that the gate is
> reliable.
> >>> The number of rechecks we've done in the last week to try and land
> code is
> >>> truly startling.
> >>
> >> I consider both problems to be pretty much equally as important. I
> don't
> >> think solving review latency or test reliabilty in isolation is enough
> to
> >> save Nova. We need to tackle both problems as a priority. I tried to
> avoid
> >> getting into my concerns about testing in my mail on review team
> bottlenecks
> >> since I think we should address the problems independantly / in
> parallel.
> >
> > Agreed with this. I don't think we can afford to ignore either one of
> them.
>
> Yes, that was my point. I don't mind us debating how to rearrange
> hypervisor drivers. However, if we think that will solve all our
> problems we are confused.
>
> So, how do we get people to start taking bugs / gate failures more
> seriously?
>
> Michael
>
>
> What do you think about having an irc channel for working through gate
> bugs? I've always found looking at gate failures frustrating because I
> seem to be expected to work through these by myself, and maybe
> somebody's already looking at it or has more information that I don't
> know about. There have been times already where a gate bug that could
> have left everything broken for a while wound up fixed pretty quickly
> because we were able to find the right person hanging out in irc.
> Sometimes all it takes is for someone with the right knowledge to be
> there. A hypothetical exchange:
>
> rechecker: I got this error where the tempest-foo test failed ... http://...
> tempest-expert: That test calls the compute-bar nova API
> nova-expert: That API calls the network-baz neutron API
> neutron-expert: When you call that API you need to also call this other
> API to poll for it to be done... is nova doing that?
> nova-expert: Nope. Fix on the way.
Honestly, the #openstack-qa channel is a completely appropriate place
for that. Plus it already has a lot of the tempest experts.
Realistically anyone that works on these kinds of fixes tend to be there.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
