[cdwg] pending review list

Jones, Peter A peter.a.jones at intel.com
Thu Aug 29 14:36:52 PDT 2013 

Thanks John/Denis. I appreciate and welcome Xyratex's intention to stimulate discussion. I have looked over the below data and must confess that I am quite puzzled by how the data in the cited tickets reconciles with the stated conclusions. Rather than starting another lengthy email chain,  I think that it would be more efficient to step through these in the next CDWG call. It certainly looks like this would be a worthwhile exercise and help feed into the process page that the CDWG is working on.

On 8/29/13 6:24 AM, "John Forgan" <john_forgan at xyratex.com<mailto:john_forgan at xyratex.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> <mailto: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://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<http://john_forgan@xyratex.com>
www.xyratex.com<http://www.xyratex.com>


________________________________
For additional information including the registered office and the treatment of Xyratex confidential information please visit www.xyratex.com<http://www.xyratex.com/>

________________________________

More information about the cdwg mailing list