| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-05-11 | |||
| 16:43:52 | gibi | ohh, then you responded to me | |
| 16:43:52 | gibi | ohh, then you responded to me | |
| 16:43:53 | bauzas | gibi: and I replied today | |
| 16:43:53 | bauzas | gibi: and I replied today | |
| 16:43:56 | gibi | cool | |
| 16:43:56 | bauzas | yup | |
| 16:43:56 | gibi | cool | |
| 16:44:14 | gibi | we as cores need to know what are the reviews we should looking at | |
| 16:44:14 | gibi | we as cores need to know what are the reviews we should looking at | |
| 16:44:23 | bauzas | my take is that we know we have contributors that don't use IRC for pinging us to review | |
| 16:44:23 | bauzas | my take is that we know we have contributors that don't use IRC for pinging us to review | |
| 16:44:41 | bauzas | and in between us, we already ping us for knowing what to review | |
| 16:44:41 | bauzas | and in between us, we already ping us for knowing what to review | |
| 16:45:16 | gibi | bauzas: true, you are doing it nicely and asking time to time that is there anything you should review | |
| 16:45:16 | gibi | bauzas: true, you are doing it nicely and asking time to time that is there anything you should review | |
| 16:45:24 | gibi | which is cool | |
| 16:45:24 | gibi | which is cool | |
| 16:45:59 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ah i think its configurable in the labe definiton | |
| 16:45:59 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ah i think its configurable in the labe definiton | |
| 16:46:04 | gibi | but if anybody can set priority label then every patch will have it as everybody wants to land their patch | |
| 16:46:04 | gibi | but if anybody can set priority label then every patch will have it as everybody wants to land their patch | |
| 16:46:12 | stephenfin | yeah, this ^ | |
| 16:46:12 | stephenfin | yeah, this ^ | |
| 16:46:13 | bauzas | actually the question I have is "what do we want to do by using labels ?" | |
| 16:46:13 | bauzas | actually the question I have is "what do we want to do by using labels ?" | |
| 16:46:19 | stephenfin | if everything is a priority, nothing is | |
| 16:46:19 | stephenfin | if everything is a priority, nothing is | |
| 16:46:30 | bauzas | that's why I proposed a second level | |
| 16:46:30 | bauzas | that's why I proposed a second level | |
| 16:46:40 | bauzas | or this could be a second label | |
| 16:46:40 | bauzas | or this could be a second label | |
| 16:46:48 | gibi | and that is why I propose to have only the second level :) | |
| 16:46:48 | gibi | and that is why I propose to have only the second level :) | |
| 16:47:04 | bauzas | I guess I need to see how this works | |
| 16:47:04 | bauzas | I guess I need to see how this works | |
| 16:47:13 | gibi | we can do an experiment | |
| 16:47:13 | gibi | we can do an experiment | |
| 16:47:15 | stephenfin | I don't think that's necessary. I occasionally review the list of open bugs looking for things that are important. I can set the label for anything I find | |
| 16:47:15 | stephenfin | I don't think that's necessary. I occasionally review the list of open bugs looking for things that are important. I can set the label for anything I find | |
| 16:47:20 | stephenfin | or anyone else | |
| 16:47:20 | stephenfin | or anyone else | |
| 16:47:36 | bauzas | gibi: yep, hence my concerns are nitty | |
| 16:47:36 | bauzas | gibi: yep, hence my concerns are nitty | |
| 16:47:50 | bauzas | gibi: but again, I need to understand what we would do | |
| 16:47:50 | bauzas | gibi: but again, I need to understand what we would do | |
| 16:48:03 | bauzas | like, I'm seeing some changes and think those are nice for other cores | |
| 16:48:03 | bauzas | like, I'm seeing some changes and think those are nice for other cores | |
| 16:48:12 | bauzas | then I'll set the label to +1 | |
| 16:48:12 | bauzas | then I'll set the label to +1 | |
| 16:48:24 | bauzas | magically, other cores will see those changes in their dashboards | |
| 16:48:24 | bauzas | magically, other cores will see those changes in their dashboards | |
| 16:48:36 | bauzas | and will consider signing off for reviews | |
| 16:48:36 | bauzas | and will consider signing off for reviews | |
| 16:49:01 | bauzas | so, the label is just a signal to the other cores ? | |
| 16:49:02 | bauzas | so, the label is just a signal to the other cores ? | |
| 16:49:04 | bauzas | or, | |
| 16:49:04 | bauzas | or, | |
| 16:49:07 | bauzas | the other way | |
| 16:49:08 | bauzas | the other way | |
| 16:49:20 | bauzas | someone pings me on IRC begging for reviews | |
| 16:49:20 | bauzas | someone pings me on IRC begging for reviews | |
| 16:49:36 | bauzas | i don't have time now but I want to review such | |
| 16:49:36 | bauzas | i don't have time now but I want to review such | |
| 16:49:39 | gibi | it is signal for other cores that this patch seems to be ready and important. And it is signal for the author to expect incoming reviews | |
| 16:49:39 | gibi | it is signal for other cores that this patch seems to be ready and important. And it is signal for the author to expect incoming reviews | |
| 16:49:43 | bauzas | so I'd tag the change for later | |
| 16:49:43 | bauzas | so I'd tag the change for later | |
| 16:49:57 | gibi | bauzas: your second use case already covered by starring a review | |
| 16:49:57 | gibi | bauzas: your second use case already covered by starring a review | |
| 16:50:05 | bauzas | gibi: right, I know | |
| 16:50:24 | bauzas | gibi: okay, then the first usecase I mentioned, which I honestly think won't help | |
| 16:50:24 | bauzas | gibi: okay, then the first usecase I mentioned, which I honestly think won't help | |
| 16:50:41 | bauzas | because we assume the signal isn't lost | |
| 16:50:41 | bauzas | because we assume the signal isn't lost | |
| 16:50:44 | gibi | even if we look at the marked review on the weekly | |
| 16:50:44 | gibi | ? | |
| 16:50:44 | gibi | even if we look at the marked review on the weekly | |
| 16:51:07 | bauzas | and we assume the cores will commit to it, whatever their respective bandwidthes are | |
| 16:51:07 | bauzas | and we assume the cores will commit to it, whatever their respective bandwidthes are | |
| 16:51:51 | bauzas | gibi: the only benefit I see honestly is the weekly meeting | |
| 16:51:51 | bauzas | gibi: the only benefit I see honestly is the weekly meeting | |
| 16:52:11 | bauzas | gibi: because we already signal important changes we care by other means, like pings | |
| 16:52:11 | bauzas | gibi: because we already signal important changes we care by other means, like pings | |
| 16:52:16 | gibi | right. I consider adding +1 priority only to a patch when I commit to review it within a week or even less | |
| 16:52:16 | gibi | right. I consider adding +1 priority only to a patch when I commit to review it within a week or even less | |
| 16:52:45 | bauzas | ok, so the signal is different | |
| 16:52:45 | bauzas | ok, so the signal is different | |
| 16:53:01 | bauzas | you're not sending a signal that's "cores, please review" | |
| 16:53:01 | bauzas | you're not sending a signal that's "cores, please review" | |
| 16:53:16 | bauzas | but rather a signal saying "I have free time to this change and I commit to it" | |
| 16:53:16 | bauzas | but rather a signal saying "I have free time to this change and I commit to it" | |
| 16:53:43 | bauzas | that's not an actional item for others then, it's an actional item for the core | |
| 16:53:43 | bauzas | that's not an actional item for others then, it's an actional item for the core | |
| 16:54:10 | bauzas | (which is better than now, agreed= | |
| 16:54:10 | bauzas | (which is better than now, agreed= | |
| 16:54:29 | gibi | my runway experience was that thing in the slot did not get review bandwidht because we missed the commitment part | |
| 16:54:29 | gibi | my runway experience was that thing in the slot did not get review bandwidht because we missed the commitment part | |
| 16:54:35 | bauzas | agreed | |
| 16:54:39 | bauzas | 100% to it | |
| 16:54:39 | bauzas | 100% to it | |