On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Amar Tumballi <[email protected]> wrote:
> All, > > Thanks for participating actively in the discussions. With all your > co-operation we now have a update on maintainers 2.0 proposal. Vijay Bellur > sent a patch last week [1] capturing all the discussions. > > Please go through the patch and see if you have any more concerns. There > are many new names in there, so just review it so you can Ack it. Niels > (ndevos) added all the people with their name on maintainers file as > reviewers for the patch. Please take some time today and give +1 to it to > acknowledge you are aware of the responsibilities. After 20 or more +1 on > the patch, we will merge the patch, and accordingly raise a ticket to > update the access to merge rights etc. > > Also, if your name is added in maintainers list (even as peer for > component), please become member of Maintainers mailing list [2] This list > is an open list (all archives available for anyone to read) so make sure > you subscribe and become members. Make sure you update your calendars with > maintainer meeting timings, so you can attend it. > > [1] - https://review.gluster.org/17583 > [2] - http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > > Main maintainers 2.0 proposal link: https://hackmd.io/s/SkwiZd4qe > > Thanks everyone. This activity is now complete. I have also raised a bug to get the merge access to relevant maintainers on their components [3]. Every new maintainers, please make a note to become member of the mailing list mentioned above this week, so you all can participate in the bi-weekly maintainers' meeting. Regards, Amar [3] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473525 > Write back if you have any more concerns. > > Regards, > Amar > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Michael Scherer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Le mardi 18 avril 2017 à 10:25 +0200, Niels de Vos a écrit : >> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:53:55PM -0700, Amye Scavarda wrote: >> > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Michael Scherer <[email protected] >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Le jeudi 13 avril 2017 à 18:01 -0700, Amye Scavarda a écrit : >> > > > > In light of community conversations, I've put some revisions on >> the >> > > > > Maintainers changes, outlined in the hackmd pad: >> > > > > https://hackmd.io/s/SkwiZd4qe >> > > > > >> > > > > Feedback welcomed! >> > > > > >> > > > > Note that the goals of this are to expand out our reach as a >> project >> > > > > (Gluster.org) and make it easy to define who's a maintainer for >> what >> > > > > feature. >> > > > > I'll highlight the goals in the document here: >> > > > > >> > > > > * Refine how we declare component owners in Gluster >> > > > > * Create a deeper sense of ownership throughout the open source >> project >> > > > > * Welcome more contibutors at a project impacting level >> > > > > >> > > > > We've clarified what the levels of 'owners' and 'peers' are in >> terms of >> > > > > responsibility, and we'll look to implement this in the 3.12 >> cycle. >> > > > > Thanks! >> > > > >> > > > So, I realize that the concept of component is not defined in the >> > > > document. I assume everybody have a shared understanding about what >> it >> > > > is, but maybe not, so wouldn't it make sense to define it more >> clearly ? >> > > > >> > > > Is this planned to be done later as part of "We will be working on >> > > > carving out new components for things that make logical sense." ? >> > > > >> > > > As for example, with regard to my previous comment, would >> > > > "infrastructure" be a component, would "documentation" be a >> component ? >> > > > >> > > > My understanding is that there's a working spreadsheet being >> refined to >> > > sort out what's an area that needs a maintainer defined, and what's >> > > something that maybe doesn't need a named maintainer. Documentation >> is a >> > > tricky place to get to, because that's something that you do just >> naturally >> > > so that future-you doesn't hate current-you. >> > >> > I agree that documentation should be part of the standard development >> > workflow. Unfortunately, this is not something that gets done without >> > reminding everyone about it. We still need maintainers/owners to bug >> > developers for documentation of new features, monitor the pull-request >> > queue and decide if the documentation is written in an acceptible way. >> >> There is also the overall issue iof documentation consistency. For >> example, style, glossary, etc, all kind of stuff that shouldn't be per >> component but aligned overall. >> >> > The maintenance of the gluster.readthedocs.io site might be a >> > infrastructure task? >> >> Wouldn't it be more logical to have it managed by the people that did >> champion RTD ? I am unable to find the discussions about it, but I am >> quite sure I had some concerns regarding RTD and wouldn't volunteer to >> maintain something where I had objections (such as "being unable to fix >> anything" is quite high on my usual objection list for taking >> responsibility of a piece of infra) >> -- >> Michael Scherer >> Sysadmin, Community Infrastructure and Platform, OSAS >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> > > > > -- > Amar Tumballi (amarts) > -- Amar Tumballi (amarts)
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
