<div dir="ltr">Hi Peter,<div><br></div><div style>I'll work with the team to get a consolidated list of any tickets that we think might need some attention, rather than feeding you bits of information piecemeal.</div><div style>
<br></div><div style>Thanks for the understanding.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Best regards</div><div style><br></div><div style>John</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 June 2013 14:20, Jones, Peter A <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:peter.a.jones@intel.com" target="_blank">peter.a.jones@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Well, both LU-3472 and LU-3473 have been uploaded since I conducted my<br>
analysis yesterday. I see that a number of others have been touched in the<br>
past 24 hours also perhaps their status has changed also. I also see<br>
patches targeted for maintenance branches in this list which are not<br>
master patches. It would be helpful if you could be specific about what<br>
you feel has been omitted rather than expecting me to guess - thanks!<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 6/14/13 3:55 AM, "Vitaly Fertman" <<a href="mailto:vitaly_fertman@xyratex.com">vitaly_fertman@xyratex.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Peter,<br>
><br>
>why don't you use this search:<br>
><br>
><a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#q,status:open+message:xyratex+-Verified-1+-Ve" target="_blank">http://review.whamcloud.com/#q,status:open+message:xyratex+-Verified-1+-Ve</a><br>
>rified-2+-CodeReview-1+-CodeReview-2,n,z<br>
><br>
>it shows some more patches<br>
><br>
>> From: Jones, Peter A <<a href="mailto:peter.a.jones@intel.com">peter.a.jones@intel.com</a>><br>
>> Date: 13 June 2013 19:41<br>
>> Subject: Re: [cdwg] Pending items to land on Lustre Tree<br>
>> To: Kevin Canady <<a href="mailto:kevin_canady@xyratex.com">kevin_canady@xyratex.com</a>>, "Christopher J. Morrone"<br>
>><<a href="mailto:morrone2@llnl.gov">morrone2@llnl.gov</a>><br>
>> Cc: "'<a href="mailto:cdwg@lists.opensfs.org">cdwg@lists.opensfs.org</a>' (<a href="mailto:cdwg@lists.opensfs.org">cdwg@lists.opensfs.org</a>)"<br>
>><<a href="mailto:cdwg@lists.opensfs.org">cdwg@lists.opensfs.org</a>>, Tommy Minyard <<a href="mailto:minyard@tacc.utexas.edu">minyard@tacc.utexas.edu</a>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Hi Kevin<br>
>><br>
>> I appreciate that you will be busy with ISC looming and so likely won't<br>
>>get to the review of the patches for a while. I had a quieter morning so<br>
>>I did an audit of the Xyratex master patches.<br>
>><br>
>> I found that there are three patches ready to land - LU3096, LU-2212<br>
>>and LU-2479. Oleg has been getting caught up with landings to master now<br>
>>that 2.4 is GA and I have asked him to prioritize these three for<br>
>>consideration.<br>
>><br>
>> In addition, there are six patches are waiting for reviews from Intel<br>
>>engineers. Three of these relate to new features(LU-2488, LU-2869, and<br>
>>LU-2854) and three are bugs (LU-3399, LU-3277, and LU-1715). All feature<br>
>>landings have been on hold during the feature freeze, but now those<br>
>>should start moving. Some of the bugs have been waiting a few weeks for<br>
>>reviews sorry about that, but engineers such as Oleg and Andreas are<br>
>>very busy. We'll get some attention to these as soon as possible and the<br>
>>reason that they are so overloaded is that their feedback is worth the<br>
>>wait :-)<br>
>><br>
>> There is one patch (LU-3155) just uploaded yesterday that is still<br>
>>running through regression testing<br>
>><br>
>> One patch(LU-901) failed regression tests and the Intel engineer<br>
>>responsible has not yet advised whether the failure is related to the<br>
>>proposed patch or not sorry about that! I have followed up with the<br>
>>engineer to ensure that this is made clear in the ticket what the next<br>
>>steps should be.<br>
>><br>
>> Finally, I discovered that a patch for LU-1409 had slipped through the<br>
>>net because it had been uploaded into gerrit against a closed JIRA<br>
>>ticket with no associated comment being made in the JIRA ticket and no<br>
>>reviewers being added. It's not quite clear to me whether this is follow<br>
>>on work or really a new issue. I have posted a question on the JIRA<br>
>>ticket with a view to getting this cleared up and we will take action<br>
>>accordingly.<br>
>><br>
>> As Chris suggested, there are also a number of other patches which are<br>
>>waiting for revisions or clarifications from Xyratex engineers. As part<br>
>>of your internal review it would be great to mark those which are not<br>
>>relevant to current master to be marked as deprecated so that we can<br>
>>focus on those patches that are important.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks<br>
>><br>
>> Peter<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 6/11/13 11:12 AM, "Kevin Canady"<br>
>><<a href="mailto:kevin_canady@xyratex.com">kevin_canady@xyratex.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kevin_canady@xyratex.com">kevin_canady@xyratex.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Chris,<br>
>> Thank you very much, great feedback. I agree with your sentiments that<br>
>>keeping the machine moving requires proper submissions. Thus, i have<br>
>>asked us to review internally prior to truly making this an issue for<br>
>>CDWG to discuss. My motivation is to keep this transparent to encourage<br>
>>others to also contribute. Xyratex has made many submissions which have<br>
>>landed and will continue to do so. I'm sure the actual count is going<br>
>>to change since it will remain fluid as new fixes and submissions are<br>
>>made ready and upstreamed. It's a constant effort. The point of the<br>
>>number is that it was large enough to warrant some attention. The action<br>
>>for the moment is ours to clarify and clean up and then confirm to move<br>
>>forward.<br>
>><br>
>> As you rightly point out we should not put undue burden on gatekeeping<br>
>>or release to clean up work of others so it is important process is<br>
>>followed. The goal is, if done properly, quality submissions will land<br>
>>quickly and be the benefit of all.<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you again for the feedback, I'm encouraged rather than feeling<br>
>>pain, just want to make sure we are going down the right path, in the<br>
>>right forum.<br>
>><br>
>> Many thanks, look forward to picking this up in a few weeks after ISC.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> Kevin<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> P. Kevin Canady<br>
>> Director, Business Development Lustre and HPC Services<br>
>> <a href="mailto:kevin_canady@xyratex.com">kevin_canady@xyratex.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kevin_canady@xyratex.com">kevin_canady@xyratex.com</a>><br>
>> <a href="tel:415.505.7701" value="+14155057701">415.505.7701</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 10:56 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone"<br>
>><<a href="mailto:morrone2@llnl.gov">morrone2@llnl.gov</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:morrone2@llnl.gov">morrone2@llnl.gov</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Kevin,<br>
>><br>
>> One thing that we should probably clarify is that you do not<br>
>>necessarily have "65 items which are pending landing". You may have 65<br>
>>items submitted to the patch review system, but that doesn't mean that<br>
>>they are pending landing yet. I would say that a patch is only in the<br>
>>"pending landing" state when it has gotten all required positive<br>
>>reviews, and had the gatekeeper reviewer assigned.<br>
>><br>
>> Pushing our patches to the review system is easy; addressing all of the<br>
>>faults in our patches that are found by the reviewers is often difficult<br>
>>and/or time consuming. But this process of review is one of the best<br>
>>tools that we have to maintain and improve the code quality in lustre.<br>
>><br>
>> I would suggest that the first step for your guys are:<br>
>><br>
>> 1) Complete all work required by the patch reviewers.<br>
>><br>
>> 2) Refresh all patches that no longer apply cleanly.<br>
>><br>
>> 3) If steps 1 and 2 are complete, and the patch is not getting<br>
>>attention, have a conversation in the associated Jira ticket.<br>
>><br>
>> 4) Finally, if having a conversation in Jira does not achieve<br>
>>satisfaction, bring the issue to the attention of the CDWG through the<br>
>>cdwg mailing list.<br>
>><br>
>> I have spotted several patches from Xyratex that haven't met steps 1 or<br>
>>2, let alone 3. On one recent patch, a Xyratex developer flat out<br>
>>refused to rebase an out of date patch, and insisted that Intel do it<br>
>>for them. That attitude needs to be addressed. It is the patch<br>
>>submitter's responsibility to get his patch into proper shape for<br>
>>landing, not the patch reviewer's responsibility.<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, this process can be long and even tedious at times. I understand.<br>
>> I feel your pain. I have had simple patches that I have needed to<br>
>>rebase several times because of other patches that landed before mine,<br>
>>introducing a conflict for my patch. But that is just a natural result<br>
>>of many people working together in the same areas of code.<br>
>><br>
>> We can't possibly shift all of that work work up the chain to the top<br>
>>reviewers or the gatekeeper. That would be a fundamentally unscalable<br>
>>approach to software development. They can't possibly handle the work<br>
>>load. That is why the patch submitter must take on the responsibility<br>
>>of seeing the patch through to 100% completion.<br>
>><br>
>> So I could be wrong, but I suspect that a much smaller number of those<br>
>>65 patches that you mentioned are really ready to be discussed by the<br>
>>broader CDWG.<br>
>><br>
>> But once your internal review is complete, and you have completed the<br>
>>steps that I've listed, we are happy to discuss any patches that you<br>
>>feel are being ignored!<br>
>><br>
>> Chris<br>
>><br>
>> On 06/11/2013 09:34 AM, Kevin Canady wrote:<br>
>> Chris, Peter and anyone else appropriate.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm looking for suggestions on how to review and proceed with items<br>
>>awaiting landing. Some of them are over 24months old. I have a list of<br>
>>65 items which are pending landing. Hopefully these contributions will<br>
>>further enhance and improve the Lustre experience for everyone. I've<br>
>>requested, first, an internal review to make sure all contributions are<br>
>>valid, complete and have been properly submitted.<br>
>><br>
>> Once that is done what is the best course for reviewing these items in<br>
>>order to bring them to a close (landed)?<br>
>><br>
>> Should we post the list with ticket numbers to CDWG?<br>
>><br>
>> Appreciate thoughts and suggestions.<br>
>> Kevin<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> P. Kevin Canady<br>
>> Director, Business Development Lustre and HPC Services<br>
>> <a href="mailto:kevin_canady@xyratex.com">kevin_canady@xyratex.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kevin_canady@xyratex.com">kevin_canady@xyratex.com</a>><br>
>> O: <a href="tel:510-687-5475" value="+15106875475">510-687-5475</a><br>
>> C: <a href="tel:415.505.7701" value="+14155057701">415.505.7701</a> (best)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> cdwg mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:cdwg@lists.opensfs.org">cdwg@lists.opensfs.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cdwg@lists.opensfs.org">cdwg@lists.opensfs.org</a>><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> cdwg mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:cdwg@lists.opensfs.org">cdwg@lists.opensfs.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>><br>
>> John Forgan<br>
>> Senior Software Engineering Manager<br>
>> Xyratex<br>
>> Office : <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%292392%20496819" value="+442392496819">+44 (0)2392 496819</a><br>
>> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%297738%20136207" value="+447738136207">+44 (0)7738 136207</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:john_forgan@xyratex.com">john_forgan@xyratex.com</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.xyratex.com" target="_blank">www.xyratex.com</a><br>
><br>
>--<br>
>Vitaly<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><br><div><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">John Forgan<br>
Senior Software Engineering Manager<br>
Xyratex<br>
Office : +44 (0)2392 496819<br>
Mobile: +44 (0)7738 136207<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://john_forgan@xyratex.com" target="_blank">john_forgan@xyratex.com</a><br>
</u></font><a href="http://www.xyratex.com" target="_blank">www.xyratex.com</a></span></font>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><hr>For additional information including the registered office and the treatment of Xyratex confidential information please visit <font color="#1155cc"><a href="http://www.xyratex.com/" target="_blank">www.xyratex.com</a></font>
</pre><div><hr></div>