| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-05-11 | |||
| 16:54:55 | bauzas | but I think I wasn't clear about the use of this new label | |
| 16:54:55 | bauzas | but I think I wasn't clear about the use of this new label | |
| 16:55:11 | bauzas | and i also think the change isn't explaining how we'll use it | |
| 16:55:11 | bauzas | and i also think the change isn't explaining how we'll use it | |
| 16:55:34 | bauzas | if it's a label for me committing to a change, then OK | |
| 16:55:34 | bauzas | if it's a label for me committing to a change, then OK | |
| 16:56:01 | bauzas | that being said, ones could tell we can just use gerrit CCs | |
| 16:56:01 | bauzas | that being said, ones could tell we can just use gerrit CCs | |
| 16:56:06 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: bauzas so just asked fungi , the review priorty lable is not defiend globlly so we can define it as we want for nova and we can make it sticky yes | |
| 16:56:06 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: bauzas so just asked fungi , the review priorty lable is not defiend globlly so we can define it as we want for nova and we can make it sticky yes | |
| 16:56:20 | fungi | yeah, look at cinder's acl for an example | |
| 16:56:20 | fungi | yeah, look at cinder's acl for an example | |
| 16:56:32 | bauzas | I'm not debating over the label itself | |
| 16:56:32 | bauzas | I'm not debating over the label itself | |
| 16:56:39 | sean-k-mooney | https://opendev.org/openstack/project-config/src/branch/master/gerrit/acls/openstack/cinder.config#L25-L35 | |
| 16:56:39 | sean-k-mooney | https://opendev.org/openstack/project-config/src/branch/master/gerrit/acls/openstack/cinder.config#L25-L35 | |
| 16:56:55 | bauzas | I'm more concerned by the solely usage we, as nova contributors, will make of it | |
| 16:56:55 | bauzas | I'm more concerned by the solely usage we, as nova contributors, will make of it | |
| 16:56:58 | gibi | bauzas: point taken. I need to write the procee up in a patch to the intree contributor doc | |
| 16:56:58 | gibi | bauzas: point taken. I need to write the procee up in a patch to the intree contributor doc | |
| 16:57:00 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: sure just confirm ing we can customise it to have the behavior we desire | |
| 16:57:00 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: sure just confirm ing we can customise it to have the behavior we desire | |
| 16:57:15 | bauzas | gibi: one last thing before I stop | |
| 16:57:15 | bauzas | gibi: one last thing before I stop | |
| 16:57:17 | gibi | bauzas: I wanted to start the discussion before I do that. Now I think I got enough input from you to do it | |
| 16:57:17 | gibi | bauzas: I wanted to start the discussion before I do that. Now I think I got enough input from you to do it | |
| 16:57:30 | bauzas | gibi: I'm not sure we need to restrict such label to the cores | |
| 16:57:30 | bauzas | gibi: I'm not sure we need to restrict such label to the cores | |
| 16:57:39 | bauzas | if it's a signal about committing to review | |
| 16:57:39 | bauzas | if it's a signal about committing to review | |
| 16:58:01 | bauzas | this could also be a way for attracting people to the vows of review | |
| 16:58:01 | bauzas | this could also be a way for attracting people to the vows of review | |
| 16:58:08 | gibi | good point | |
| 16:58:08 | gibi | good point | |
| 16:58:34 | sean-k-mooney | well if you look at cinders usage its quite interesting | |
| 16:58:34 | sean-k-mooney | well if you look at cinders usage its quite interesting | |
| 16:58:42 | sean-k-mooney | value = -1 Branch Freeze | |
| 16:58:42 | sean-k-mooney | value = -1 Branch Freeze | |
| 16:58:44 | sean-k-mooney | value = 0 No Priority | |
| 16:58:44 | sean-k-mooney | value = 0 No Priority | |
| 16:58:46 | sean-k-mooney | value = +1 Important Change | |
| 16:58:46 | sean-k-mooney | value = +1 Important Change | |
| 16:58:48 | sean-k-mooney | value = +2 Gate Blocker Fix / Urgent Change | |
| 16:58:48 | sean-k-mooney | value = +2 Gate Blocker Fix / Urgent Change | |
| 16:59:08 | sean-k-mooney | they have it resticted to the core group | |
| 16:59:08 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: that's very different from what gibi was suggesting | |
| 16:59:08 | sean-k-mooney | they have it resticted to the core group | |
| 16:59:08 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: that's very different from what gibi was suggesting | |
| 16:59:30 | fungi | i have to agree, restricting access because of a fear of abuse is a premature optimization which can stifle involvement from newcomers. i recommend only restricting it if actual abuse is observed and is otherwise uncontrollable | |
| 16:59:30 | fungi | i have to agree, restricting access because of a fear of abuse is a premature optimization which can stifle involvement from newcomers. i recommend only restricting it if actual abuse is observed and is otherwise uncontrollable | |
| 16:59:50 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: it is which is why i was highigly a different usage patteren | |
| 16:59:50 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: it is which is why i was highigly a different usage patteren | |
| 17:00:05 | bauzas | sounds like we have a debate :) | |
| 17:00:05 | bauzas | sounds like we have a debate :) | |
| 17:00:42 | sean-k-mooney | fungi: wel part of the idea was to use it to replace oru old runway proces where anyone could add something to the queue but only core move thing into the runway slots | |
| 17:00:42 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: just before you came back, I was exposing to gibi the fact that I don't think the signal is useful if it's just a ask for cores to review | |
| 17:00:42 | sean-k-mooney | fungi: wel part of the idea was to use it to replace oru old runway proces where anyone could add something to the queue but only core move thing into the runway slots | |
| 17:00:42 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: just before you came back, I was exposing to gibi the fact that I don't think the signal is useful if it's just a ask for cores to review | |
| 17:01:06 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: and gibi told me the crux of the idea was "commitment" | |
| 17:01:06 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: and gibi told me the crux of the idea was "commitment" | |
| 17:01:20 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: yes that is why it was going to be restrited to cores to set | |
| 17:01:20 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: yes that is why it was going to be restrited to cores to set | |
| 17:01:28 | fungi | maybe look at it as being similar to bug triage. do you restrict who can set the severity on bug reports? | |
| 17:01:28 | fungi | maybe look at it as being similar to bug triage. do you restrict who can set the severity on bug reports? | |
| 17:01:45 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: the problem is that we had a process with runways which didn't really work because of the lack of commitment | |
| 17:01:45 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: the problem is that we had a process with runways which didn't really work because of the lack of commitment | |
| 17:01:52 | sean-k-mooney | fungi: its an open team but ithink the motivates are different | |
| 17:01:52 | bauzas | fungi: nope | |
| 17:01:52 | sean-k-mooney | fungi: its an open team but ithink the motivates are different | |
| 17:01:52 | bauzas | fungi: nope | |
| 17:02:15 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well not entirly | |
| 17:02:15 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well not entirly | |
| 17:02:24 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: if we're creating labels for marking changes for reviews, we'll just recreate the runway process but gerrit driven this time | |
| 17:02:24 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: if we're creating labels for marking changes for reviews, we'll just recreate the runway process but gerrit driven this time | |
| 17:02:46 | bauzas | which honestly didn't greatly work | |
| 17:02:46 | bauzas | which honestly didn't greatly work | |
| 17:02:53 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: partly | |
| 17:02:53 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: partly | |
| 17:02:55 | bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney: here is what I'm proposing | |
| 17:02:55 | bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney: here is what I'm proposing | |
| 17:03:25 | gibi | * gibi listens but pretty out of steam already today | |
| 17:03:30 | bauzas | we should Depend-On the ACL change to some new change in the contribs docs | |
| 17:03:30 | bauzas | we should Depend-On the ACL change to some new change in the contribs docs | |
| 17:03:42 | bauzas | that would explain the process | |
| 17:03:42 | bauzas | that would explain the process | |
| 17:03:56 | bauzas | b/c the acl change is just implementation | |
| 17:03:56 | bauzas | b/c the acl change is just implementation | |
| 17:04:04 | bauzas | but we miss the design phase | |
| 17:04:04 | bauzas | but we miss the design phase | |
| 17:04:08 | sean-k-mooney | sure no issue with that | |
| 17:04:08 | sean-k-mooney | sure no issue with that | |
| 17:04:21 | fungi | but yes, if the goal is to only ever have x number of "priority" flagged reviews, and you expect to have a limited number of people with the necessary perspective to decide which those are, then restricting the label might be a way of avoiding problems with coordination. it all depends on how you expect to use that signal | |
| 17:04:21 | fungi | but yes, if the goal is to only ever have x number of "priority" flagged reviews, and you expect to have a limited number of people with the necessary perspective to decide which those are, then restricting the label might be a way of avoiding problems with coordination. it all depends on how you expect to use that signal | |
| 17:04:38 | gibi | bauzas: I agree | |
| 17:04:38 | gibi | bauzas: I agree | |
| 17:04:46 | bauzas | gibi: take a break and just commit yourself about describing your ideal view on what should be the process for those labels in a separate change | |
| 17:04:46 | bauzas | gibi: take a break and just commit yourself about describing your ideal view on what should be the process for those labels in a separate change | |
| 17:04:49 | gibi | bauzas: and I sign up to write the proposal | |
| 17:04:49 | gibi | bauzas: and I sign up to write the proposal | |
| 17:04:59 | bauzas | cool | |