[cdwg] pending review list

Thu Aug 29 06:24:01 PDT 2013

Hi,

I'd just like to emphasize that we are keen to work with the community to
improve process and response times, and it may very well be that there are
issues with the way that we, ourselves, are logging and progressing
tickets. Please make any recommendations that you think will help.

I appreciate that it is never easy to handle many things at once,
particularly in an Open Source project where resources aren't limitless,
but if we all come to a common understanding on how to handle tickets and
how to ensure an appropriate response time, it can only be a good thing for
us all.

Best regards

John

On 29 August 2013 14:10, Denis Kondratenko <denis_kondratenko at xyratex.com>wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> OK. Let me be more specific.
> I am still in position to find and define process problems and not to
> blame someone.
>
> Let start from small subset of our current reviews. It seems to be
> specific and natural.
>
> Looking to this queue (and master only):
> http://review.whamcloud.com/#/q/starredby:Denis_Kondratenko,n,z
>
> LU-3031/5843:
> Uploaded: Mar 26, 2013 2:07 PM
> Updated: Aug 29, 2013 6:44 AM
> Patch Sets: 5
>
> from first look it seems OK, Updated recently and has no negative marks.
> But lets see why 5 patch sets and 5 months.
> Patch Set 1 - failed testing.
> 28 Mar - 8 Apr, 11 days - no update from engineer
> Patch Set 2 - passed
> 9 Apr-10 Jul, 31 days - no review
> 10 Jul - 26 Jul, 16 days - no update from engineer
> Patch Set 3 - passed
> 30 Jul- 10 Aug, 10 days, - no review
> 10 Aug-13 Aug, 3 days, - no review
> review failed
> 13 Aug-26 Aug, 13 days - no update from engineer
> build failed - rebase - 2 days
>
> Process summary:
> 5 stages, 5 months
> no update from engineer: 11+16+13 = 40 days
> no review:  31+10+3 = 44 days
> test failures: 1
> rebase: 2 days
>
> LU-2524/5022
> Process summary:
> 15 stages, 7.5 months
> no update from engineer: 2+1+2+26+5+150+5+2
> no review: 2
> test failures: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1
> rebase: 4
>
> LU-1601/3276
> Process summary:
> 10 stages, 13 months
> no update from engineer: 14+19+7+180+2+12
> no review: 120+12+28
> test failures: 1+1+1
> test issue: 7
> rebase:3
>
> LU-3473/6648
> Process summary:
> 2 stages, 0.5 months
> no update from engineer: 13
> no review: 1
> test failures:
> test issue:
> rebase:
>
> LU-2711/5213
> Process summary:
> 17 stages, 5 months
> no update from engineer: 10+9+30
> no review: 5+5+70
> test failures: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
> test issue:5+
> rebase:1+1+1
>
> LU-2377/4664
> Process summary:
> 2 stages, 9 months
> no update from engineer: 120
> no review: 4+112
> test failures:
> test issue:
> rebase:
>
> So that are strict numbers.
>
> What conclusions should be done, numbers like:
> 31, 26, 150, 180, 120, 30, 70, 120, 112
> indicate issues.
>
> Problem stages are: no update from engineer, no review.
>
> All tickets are individual, but pattern is the same.
> If there will be possibility to get that stat on big set of issues we
> could get different conclusion.
>
> So I think you probably understood the way. We need stat numbers and not
> individual check for every ticket.
>
> We might be need some automatic notification for stages longer than 1-2
> weeks (what ever we will define).
>
> Might be that any time more than week or two - is the sbj for discuss on
> CDWG.
>
> Numbers will not say us all trues about review - they will indicate
> problem reviews and problem stages.
>
> That what I want to discuss on CDWG every week - what problem reviews we
> have, what problem stages now.
>
> Please review and provide your feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> Denis
>
> On 29 авг. 2013, at 00:46, "Jones, Peter A" <peter.a.jones at intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes the CDWG is the place to raise questions like this. Alternatively, my
> door continues to remain open to John if he would like to chat directly.
>
> On 8/28/13 10:58 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone" <morrone2 at llnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Denis,
>
> I think that the CDWG list is the place to take these.
>
> I would suggest though, that you need to say a little more about what
> you think the problem if for each of the patches.
>
> For instance you call out patch 5213 from LU-2711, and it looks to me
> like that patch had a recent review from Andreas and now the ball is in
> Xyratex's court waiting for the next revision.  What do you want or need
> from the CDWG on that ticket?  What is it that we should find interesting?
>
> Chris
>
> On 08/28/2013 10:19 AM, Denis Kondratenko wrote:
>
> Forgot to add Nic
>
> On Aug 28, 2013 7:45 PM, "Denis Kondratenko"
> <denis_kondratenko at xyratex.com <mailto:denis_kondratenko at xyratex.com<denis_kondratenko at xyratex.com>
> >>
> wrote:
>
>    Hi Team,
>
>    I don't really know how to correctly share this info to discuss on
>    CDWG or just with us.
>
>    Lets start from something.
>
>    Here is the list of reviews that we want to check:
>
> http://review.whamcloud.com/#/q/status:open+project:fs/lustre-release+sta
> rredby:Denis_Kondratenko+branch:master+-Verified-1+-Verified-2+-CodeRevie
> w-1+-CodeReview-2,n,z
>
>    That actually has different problems inside.
>    Beside that it was updated recently, some of that takes long time to
>    review.
>
>    It not worse to look into this table too:
>    http://review.whamcloud.com/#/q/starredby:Denis_Kondratenko,n,z
>
>    Examples are LU-2711 and LU-2377, interesting to look into them.
>
>    Branches other than master - we need to understand what to do with
>    them too. Should we not submit fixes against them?
>
>    Probably will be cool to get list of problems that we have(in
>    engineering response for example) from these list and start
>    discussion on CDWG. Maybe we could later build some FAQ or improve
>    process.
>
>    Please review and provide your feedback.
>
>    Thanks,
>    Denis
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For additional information including the registered office and the
> treatment of Xyratex confidential information please
> visitwww.xyratex.com  <http://www.xyratex.com/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

John Forgan
Senior Software Engineering Manager
Xyratex
Office : +44 (0)2392 496819
Mobile: +44 (0)7738 136207
*john_forgan at xyratex.com
*www.xyratex.com

-- 

------------------------------
For additional information including the registered office and the treatment of Xyratex confidential information please visit www.xyratex.com

------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensfs.org/pipermail/cdwg-opensfs.org/attachments/20130829/b215f69b/attachment-0002.htm>