Stefano Maffulli wrote:
I have the feeling we keep going back to communicating expectations to
new participants to the community. Are we putting too much emphasis on
new commits and too little on new reviews? What do you think if from
now on the weekly newsletter would mention the new first
On 10/29/2013 07:14 PM, Tom Fifield wrote:
On 30/10/13 07:58, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 10/29/2013 04:24 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 10/28/2013 10:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
2) Setting clearer expectations. Since we have so many blueprints for
Nova, I feel it's very important to
On 30/10/13 17:14, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 10/29/2013 07:14 PM, Tom Fifield wrote:
On 30/10/13 07:58, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 10/29/2013 04:24 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 10/28/2013 10:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
2) Setting clearer expectations. Since we have so many blueprints for
On 10/30/2013 02:26 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
On 30/10/13 17:14, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 10/29/2013 07:14 PM, Tom Fifield wrote:
So, how would you feel about giving some priority manipulation abilities
to the user committee? :)
Abilities, no, but input, of course.
Any practical ideas on the
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 10/28/2013 10:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
2) Setting clearer expectations. Since we have so many blueprints for
Nova, I feel it's very important to accurately set expectations for how
the priority of different projects compare. In the last cycle,
priorities were
On Wed 30 Oct 2013 03:29:32 AM PDT, Thierry Carrez wrote:
(1) Rating blueprints low priority doesn't mean they won't make it. It
means we have no idea if they will make it. Maybe the proposer doesn't
have a proven track record of hitting promised deadlines, maybe we don't
have core reviewers
On 28 October 2013 15:39, Anne Gentle a...@openstack.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
Here is a really bad attempt at codifying what I think about features vs
bugs:
1) If its a new API call, or a change in behaviour, or a new config
setting,
John Garbutt wrote:
On 25 October 2013 11:52, Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't have the numbers but I have a feeling that what happened in
Havana was that a lot of blueprints slipped until the time for feature
freeze. Reviewers thought it was a worthwile feature at that point
On 10/28/2013 10:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
2) Setting clearer expectations. Since we have so many blueprints for
Nova, I feel it's very important to accurately set expectations for how
the priority of different projects compare. In the last cycle,
priorities were mainly subjectively set
On 10/29/2013 04:24 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 10/28/2013 10:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
2) Setting clearer expectations. Since we have so many blueprints for
Nova, I feel it's very important to accurately set expectations for how
the priority of different projects compare. In the last
On 30/10/13 07:58, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 10/29/2013 04:24 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 10/28/2013 10:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
2) Setting clearer expectations. Since we have so many blueprints for
Nova, I feel it's very important to accurately set expectations for how
the priority of
On 25 October 2013 11:52, Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com wrote:
On 23/10/13 17:33, Russell Bryant wrote:
4) Blueprint Prioritization
I would like to do a better job of using priorities in Icehouse. The
priority field services a couple of purposes:
- helps reviewers prioritize their
On 25 October 2013 10:18, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 24, 2013 9:14 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
On 24 October 2013 04:33, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Greetings,
At the last Nova meeting we started talking about some updates to the
On 10/23/2013 08:33 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
At the last Nova meeting we started talking about some updates to the
Nova blueprint process for the Icehouse cycle. I had hoped we could
talk about and finalize this in a Nova design summit session on Nova
Project Structure and Process [1], but I
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
On 25 October 2013 10:18, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 24, 2013 9:14 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net
wrote:
On 24 October 2013 04:33, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
On 25 October 2013 11:52, Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't have the numbers but I have a feeling that what happened in
Havana was that a lot of blueprints slipped until the time for feature
freeze. Reviewers thought it was a worthwile feature at that point
On 29 October 2013 03:24, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
I based that on this statement, which I think sums it up well If the patch
implements a feature, it should reference a blueprint. The blueprint should
be approved before the patch is merged
On Oct 24, 2013 9:14 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
On 24 October 2013 04:33, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Greetings,
At the last Nova meeting we started talking about some updates to the
Nova blueprint process for the Icehouse cycle. I had hoped we
On 23/10/13 17:33, Russell Bryant wrote:
4) Blueprint Prioritization
I would like to do a better job of using priorities in Icehouse. The
priority field services a couple of purposes:
- helps reviewers prioritize their time
- helps set expectations for the submitter for how
It would be helpful if you could follow the reply style being used. :-)
-Original Message-
From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: October-24-13 5:08 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Blueprint review process
On 10/24
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Greetings,
At the last Nova meeting we started talking about some updates to the
Nova blueprint process for the Icehouse cycle. I had hoped we could
talk about and finalize this in a Nova design summit session on Nova
In the last meeting we discussed an idea that I think is worth trying at
least for icehouse-1 to see if we like it or not. The idea is that
*every* blueprint starts out at a Low priority, which means best
effort, but no promises. For a blueprint to get prioritized higher, it
should have 2
On 10/24/13 4:46 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
In the last meeting we discussed an idea that I think is worth trying at
least for icehouse-1 to see if we like it or not. The idea is that
*every* blueprint starts out at a Low priority, which means best
effort, but no promises.
On 10/24/2013 07:43 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Here is a first cut at the process. Let me know what you think is
missing or should change. I'll get the result of this thread posted on
On 10/24/2013 10:52 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
On 10/24/13 4:46 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
In the last meeting we discussed an idea that I think is worth trying at
least for icehouse-1 to see if we like it or not. The idea is that
*every* blueprint starts out at a Low priority,
On 10/24/13 at 11:07am, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 10/24/2013 10:52 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
On 10/24/13 4:46 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
In the last meeting we discussed an idea that I think is worth trying at
least for icehouse-1 to see if we like it or not. The idea is that
Russell Bryant wrote:
At the last Nova meeting we started talking about some updates to the
Nova blueprint process for the Icehouse cycle. I had hoped we could
talk about and finalize this in a Nova design summit session on Nova
Project Structure and Process [1], but I think we need to push
On 10/24/2013 11:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
At the last Nova meeting we started talking about some updates to the
Nova blueprint process for the Icehouse cycle. I had hoped we could
talk about and finalize this in a Nova design summit session on Nova
Project Structure
On 24 October 2013 04:33, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Greetings,
At the last Nova meeting we started talking about some updates to the
Nova blueprint process for the Icehouse cycle. I had hoped we could
talk about and finalize this in a Nova design summit session on Nova
-
From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: October-24-13 5:08 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Blueprint review process
On 10/24/2013 10:52 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
On 10/24/13 4:46 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
In the last
30 matches
Mail list logo
