On Wednesday, January 27, 2016, Justin Pettit <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Russell Bryant <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > I'm OK going either way here, but hopefully that helps explain my > > motivation. > > I understand the motivation and agree with it in principal, but I share > Ben's concern about it becoming territorial. Understanding the landscape > is really only important when it comes to committers, since they could in > theory commit something that someone with more domain expertise doesn't > like. Historically, this hasn't been a big deal, since there was only one > project (OVS), and by the time someone became a committer, they had a > pretty good lay of the land. Now that we have OVN, someone could have an > understanding of one project, but start committing in the other without > knowing who the experts are. > > I suspect that in the long term, OVN will become a standalone project with > its own set of committers that is not identical to OVS's. I think then > we'd be back with the committers generally knowing who works on what in > their particular project, and it will sort of solve itself. If we start > declaring "owners" of certain modules, we could move from a de facto > holding back for a knowledgable opinion to developers declaring that people > can't commit to "their" modules. > > OK, sounds good. Thanks for the discussion about it! -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
