On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:07:38PM +0530, Rabi Mishra wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Matt Riedemann <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 2/15/2017 12:40 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: > > Traditionally Heat has given current and former PTLs of the project +2 > rights on stable branches for as long as they remain core reviewers. > Usually I've done that by adding them to the heat-release group. > > At some point the system changed so that the review rights for these > branches are no longer under the team's control (instead, the > stable-maint core team is in charge), and as a result at least the > current PTL (Rico Lin) and the previous PTL (Rabi Mishra), and > possibly > others (Thomas Herve, Sergey Kraynev), haven't been added to the > group. > That's slowing down getting backports merged, amongst other things. > > I'd like to request that we update the membership to be the same as > https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/152,members > > Rabi Mishra > Rico Lin > Sergey Kraynev > Steve Baker > Steven Hardy > Thomas Herve > Zane Bitter > > I also wonder if the stable-maint team would consider allowing the > Heat > team to manage the group membership again if we commit to the criteria > above (all current/former PTLs who are also core reviewers) by just > adding that group as a member of heat-stable-maint? > > thanks, > Zane. > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > Reviewing patches on stable branches have different guidelines, > expressed here [1]. In the past when this comes up I've asked if the > people being asked to be added to the stable team for a project have > actually been doing reviews on the stable branches to show they are > following the guidelines, and at times when this has come up the people > proposed (usually PTLs) haven't, so I've declined at that time until > they start actually doing reviews and can show they are following the > guidelines. > > There are reviewstats tools for seeing the stable review numbers for > Heat, I haven't run that though to check against those proposed above, > but it's probably something I'd do first before just adding a bunch of > people. > > Would it not be appropriate to trust the stable cross-project liaison for > heat when he nominates stable cores? Having been the PTL for Ocata and one > who struggled to get the backports on time for a stable release as > planned, I don't recall seeing many reviews from stable maintenance core > team for them to be able to judge the quality of reviews. So I don't think > it's fair to decide eligibility only based on the review numbers and > stats.
I agree - those nominated by Zane are all highly experienced reviewers and as ex-PTLs are well aware of the constraints around stable backports and stable release management. I do agree the requirements around reviews for stable branches are very different, but I think we need to assume good faith here and accept we have a bottleneck which can be best fixed by adding some folks we *know* are capable of exercising sound judgement to the stable-maint team for heat. I respect the arguments made by the stable-maint core folks, and I think we all understand the reason for these concerns, but ultimately unless folks outside the heat core team are offering to help with reviews directly, I think it's a little unreasonable to block the addition of these reviewers, given they've been proposed by the current stable liason who I think is in the best position to judge the suitability of candidates. Thanks, Steve __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
