| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-03 | |||
| 15:34:11 | dansmith | heh | |
| 15:34:16 | dansmith | mriedem: take storyboard with you | |
| 15:35:00 | dansmith | efried: so, the spec still gets a core sponsor field in this case? because launchpad has lots of other fields we could use instead | |
| 15:35:23 | dansmith | efried: and that might help decouple the "am I sponsoring this spec for review or...?" question | |
| 15:35:45 | efried | dansmith: Yes, I would like core sponsor in the spec to stay, because it's more indelible than lp | |
| 15:36:08 | efried | also I see lp as more of an administrative tool and the spec as more of a technical thing | |
| 15:36:21 | efried | i.e. devs should be able to ignore lp for the most part | |
| 15:36:42 | dansmith | okay, so then I need to consider whether I'm going to sponsor a thing now when it lands, in anticipation that it may be chosen for the top 25 later and I'll be on the hook to review it in that case? | |
| 15:36:51 | efried | yes | |
| 15:37:29 | efried | and btw, that could inform how you vote for what gets cut | |
| 15:37:29 | dansmith | okay so I will still be conservative with what I'm willing to sponsor in spec reviews | |
| 15:38:17 | efried | dansmith: that's a legit approach. It ought to end up limiting the number of things on the table at cut time, which is productive in itself. | |
| 15:39:01 | mriedem | are we still confusing sponsor with on the hook to review? | |
| 15:39:16 | dansmith | aight, so artom you need to get your tests landed so you can get your spec up so I can shoot my wad on it | |
| 15:39:18 | mriedem | i keep getting confused if those are meant to be the same | |
| 15:39:21 | efried | mriedem: not confusing. That's one of the stated purposes of sponsor | |
| 15:39:36 | mriedem | then...why don't we have sponsors for core-proposed specs? | |
| 15:39:41 | artom | dansmith, what your what on my what now? | |
| 15:39:43 | mriedem | i.e. i can't review and +2 my own changes | |
| 15:39:46 | dansmith | efried: don't say it's not confusing because it has confused at least two of us already | |
| 15:40:02 | mriedem | there are really 2 things: | |
| 15:40:06 | dansmith | artom: spec for sriov LM claims | |
| 15:40:06 | artom | dansmith, you mean land the NUMA LM func tests so that I can propose the SRIOV LM Claims spec? | |
| 15:40:07 | mriedem | 1. official hand holder | |
| 15:40:11 | dansmith | artom: cha | |
| 15:40:13 | mriedem | 2. designated reviewer | |
| 15:40:28 | artom | dansmith, ok, I guess that answers my question of whether we need a spec for it :) | |
| 15:40:41 | mriedem | sponsor is munging both of those concepts it seems | |
| 15:40:54 | dansmith | artom: I was going to say in the meeting I think it's worthwhile, but this process also tells me that you need a spec in order for me to document that I want to spend my time reviewing it | |
| 15:40:55 | mriedem | and #2 doesn't jive with "i'll sponsor my own spec thanks" | |
| 15:41:18 | artom | dansmith, oh i c | |
| 15:41:55 | dansmith | mriedem: Designated Reviewer is a new series on ABC this fall starring Keifer Sutherland | |
| 15:42:09 | mriedem | as long as it's not cop drama on cbs | |
| 15:42:14 | mriedem | NDISLKD | |
| 15:42:34 | artom | CSI: Gerrit | |
| 15:42:36 | efried | mriedem: There's nothing stopping a core from having a separate sponsor. I just didn't want to make it a hard requirement that owner != sponsor. Because cores (and experienced nova devs) know how to go ask for reviews, so they don't need it written down. | |
| 15:43:04 | efried | mriedem: I agree it would be nice to have someone on the hook committed to reviewing your thing. | |
| 15:43:23 | mriedem | so how is sean-k-mooney a sponsor on his own spec in your liaison patch? | |
| 15:43:34 | mriedem | i guess for the same reason dan is on his? | |
| 15:43:37 | mriedem | i'm still confused | |
| 15:43:39 | mriedem | but whatever | |
| 15:43:48 | mriedem | it's nearly 11am and i haven't done anything useful | |
| 15:43:51 | efried | artom suggested that experienced devs are culturally indoctrinated enough to know how to go ask for reviews. | |
| 15:44:03 | efried | I updated the template language accordingly | |
| 15:44:18 | dansmith | efried: so then sponsor is not the designated reviewer but the designated "tell them to ask for reviews" person? | |
| 15:44:32 | mriedem | i'm hearing it's .... both? | |
| 15:44:35 | efried | "help me get this reviewed" | |
| 15:44:37 | mriedem | but only on thursdays | |
| 15:45:20 | efried | Also noting that reviews from experienced devs are valuable even if they aren't able to approve | |
| 15:45:48 | mriedem | examples would be good for thinking through this, | |
| 15:46:14 | mriedem | so on dan's spec, if i am listed as an official sponsor, it's not because i need to hold dan's hand, it's because i'm signing up to be an official reviewer feet to the fire person | |
| 15:46:25 | mriedem | and he has all rights to harass me in irc if i do'nt do so | |
| 15:46:37 | efried | yes | |
| 15:46:53 | mriedem | on the other hand, i could approve some non-core newb contributor but not sponsor them and absolve myself of all review responsibility | |
| 15:47:13 | mriedem | and thus being quite a dick | |
| 15:47:40 | efried | sure, I'm not trying to create a process to prevent dickishness. | |
| 15:47:43 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add reserved schema migrations for Ussuri https://review.opendev.org/686411 | |
| 15:47:48 | mriedem | in reality i just wouldn't approve the spec | |
| 15:47:52 | mriedem | if i don't intend to review it | |
| 15:48:16 | dansmith | that's what I'm hearing, | |
| 15:48:20 | efried | We need more than one reviewer (hopefully more than two, but I'm a realist) to approve code anyway. | |
| 15:48:27 | dansmith | and I think it's important to make sure all the cores get that message | |
| 15:49:01 | efried | If we had some way of making that message clear and making it stick, I would be all over it. | |
| 15:49:46 | mriedem | it probably needs to at least be documented in the specs review for code review process | |
| 15:49:52 | mriedem | *specs repo | |
| 15:50:33 | mriedem | https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/readme.html#specification-review-policies | |
| 15:52:14 | mriedem | i have voted on the liaison patch forewith | |
| 15:52:18 | mriedem | forthwith? | |
| 15:52:26 | mriedem | yes | |
| 15:55:31 | efried | thanks | |
| 15:57:06 | mriedem | btw i know this isn't fun, | |
| 15:57:08 | mriedem | welcome to process land | |
| 15:57:14 | mriedem | and my world for 2 years | |
| 15:57:23 | efried | thanks | |
| 15:57:39 | mriedem | yo'ure also very handsome | |
| 15:58:25 | gmann | efried: i have re-proposed the policy spec for ussuri - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686058/ | |
| 16:02:26 | efried | mriedem: is that a thing? Three thank-yous and the bot automatically picks it up? | |
| 16:02:34 | efried | I'll have to be more careful. | |
| 16:02:36 | efried | gmann: ack | |
| 16:02:46 | mriedem | efried: ha, no | |
| 16:02:51 | mriedem | not what i meant | |
| 16:03:24 | efried | gmann: stay tuned for an update on how we're going to be deciding on approvals (once we figure it out ourselves...) | |
| 16:06:00 | gmann | efried: you mean the on ML thread ? but this is re-proposal of already approved spec | |
| 16:06:54 | efried | gmann: yup, that's understood. We're leaning towards making even those conform to the same criteria. | |
| 16:07:12 | gmann | humm | |
| 16:08:05 | efried | gmann: mriedem makes a good point about needing to update the nova-specs readme accordingly, because previously-reviewed specs will need more than just a random single-core +2 now. | |
| 16:08:15 | gmann | I thought re-approved things are fast approved one and new one goes into that criteria | |
| 16:08:46 | efried | gmann: not an unreasonable assumption. We're still working out the details. | |
| 16:09:52 | dansmith | gmann: that's being changed | |
| 16:09:56 | dansmith | well, potentially | |
| 16:10:25 | dansmith | efried: fwiw, I think the re-approval of specs has always been flawed because we just kick things down the road instead of requiring them to muster enough support to be approved again | |
| 16:10:28 | cdent | if a pre-approved spec didn't get done in the previous cycle, one would think that it deserves extra inspection to see if it is maybe a lost cause | |
| 16:10:39 | cdent | yeah, what dansmith said | |
| 16:10:42 | efried | ++ | |
| 16:10:42 | dansmith | yup | |
| 16:11:08 | efried | requiring the sponsor to +2 might be enough | |
| 16:11:59 | efried | or we could just completely do away with official special treatment, understanding that previously-approved specs will probably require less technical scrutiny just naturally. | |
| 16:17:11 | mriedem | dansmith: i hope i answered your question in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686047/ and the one after it | |
| 16:23:44 | dansmith | mriedem: not really, but doesn't matter | |
| 16:24:55 | SonPham | hi | |