On 04/20/2016 11:44 AM, Dan Prince wrote:
We've had a run of really spotty CI in TripleO. This is making it
really hard to land patches if reviewers aren't online. Specifically we
seem to get better CI results when the queue is less full (nights and
weekends)... often when core reviewers aren't around.
One thing that would help is if core reviews would +2 instead of +1'ing
a patches. If you buy the approach of a gerrit review, the code looks
good, etc. then go on and +2 it. Don't wait for CI to pass before
coming back around to add your final stamp of approval. We all agree
that the tripleo-check jobs should be passing (or have passed once
collectively) before making any final +A to the patch.
Agreed. The rationale for +1 is only if you are a contributor to the
patch, and someone else has made changes. +1 Indicates that you are
happy with the other person's changes.
The case for a core reviewer to +1 a patch is rare I think. If you have
some comments to add but don't want to +2 it then perhaps add those
comments with a +0 (or -1 if you think it needs fixed). Sure there are
some edge cases where +1's are helpful. But if our goal is to land good
code faster I think it would be more helpful to go ahead and +2 and let
the CI results fall where they may.
Dan
__________________________________________________________________________
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
