[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy

> On 8 Jul 2015, at 15:46, Chen, Tiejun <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2015/7/8 21:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new 
>> parameters to set rdm policy"):
>>> On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> I appreciate that I have come to this review late.  While I have found
>>>> the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
>>>> I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.
>>>> Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
>>>> avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series.  After
>>>> discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
>> ...
>>> Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give
>>> us this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe
>>> you should can get that expected answer to your question.
>> As I say, I'm sorry that I have come to this late.  There were other
>> pressing problems taking my attention, but of course that is my
>> problem and not your fault.
>> (If I had been undertaking this review a couple of months ago I would
>> have been taking a much harder line.)
> Certainly I knew this point and trust me, I can image how harder it should 
> be. And honestly, I really agree you should write such a bottom line to every 
> series toward higher quality. So at this point I don't oppose any rigorous 
> requirement.
> But what I'm arguing here is that, if you really ask us to reach this 
> standard, just please pay attention to this at the beginning. And then, no 
> matter how bad things are, no matter how difficult your requirements are, 
> it's going to be getting better and at least we shouldn't face current 
> dilemma, because we would have relatively enough time to 
> discuss/correct/improve any concerns. In fact, I also don't like this kind of 
> rush-mode in short time :( Look, now both of us are frustrated.

Guys, from my perspective it looks like we have a way forward on this specific 
question. Please stay focussed on the task. If anyone needs to vent some 
frustration, feel free to contact me privately: it does sometimes help a 
little. But keep in mind that every email exchange related to what has gone 
wrong with process and workflow, will take away time from getting patch series 
into 4.6. Either yours or someone else's.

We are all under pressure, and are a little frustrated and are trying to make a 
good 4.6 release. We should have a post-mortem discussion (maybe using some 
sort of IRC format, email thread, wiki page, call or whatever works) once the 
pressure has gone and we had a little bit of time to cool off. But now is not 
the time: discussing process and workflow issues will just distract everyone.

To be fair to Ian, he has been working flat out on migrating OSSTEST to the new 
Test Lab which is crucial for the project, compensating for a contractor who 
couldn't deliver what they promised. The work took a lot longer than expected 
and has created an awful lot of pain for Ian and others and significantly 
reduced the time he could spend on reviews. 

I am sure we can all learn from this release cycle and I am happy to organise a 
follow-up, when the bulk of 4.6 work is out of the way.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.