Re: [Xen-devel] [xen 4.6 retrospective] [bad] review load near freeze point

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth.xen@xxxxxxxxx>]

> On 28 Aug 2015, at 17:22, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>>> On 28.08.15 at 18:04, <lars.kurth.xen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 28 Aug 2015, at 16:21, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> B) Not enough coordination amongst committers
>>> 
>>> Can you be more specific (perhaps with examples) about this one?
>> 
>> A few concrete example were several of Vitaly's series (I will let him point 
>> out a couple of examples, as he raised this one).
>> Anyone else who has such examples?
>> 
>> I have seen a few, but would need to get back and investigate. in particular 
>> the fault-line seems to be around patches that affect both hypervisor and 
>> tools. The feedback was that there can be weeks between hypervisor and tools 
>> portions of a series being reviewed, leading to lost elapsed times.
> 
> But I'm pretty convinced this isn't because of bad coordination between
> maintainers (not committers btw),

Should have been s/committers/reviewers/ - apologies

> but because of a lack of bandwidth.
> Just because reviewers for one side have the cycles doesn't means the
> ones on the other side have too.

Not disagreeing. It would be good though if we can eliminate a "need for better 
coordination" as a primary cause for these delays.
I am somewhat stuck in a hard place, because everyone I talk to has a different 
opinion on what is going wrong. 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel