On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:25:49AM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > On 10 December 2013 11:04, Steven Hardy <sha...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> So it's a gross mischaracterisation to imply that a democratic process > >> aided by some [crude] stats has been reduced to name & shame, and a > >> rather offensive one. > > > > Yes I have read your monthly core reviewer update emails and I humbly > > apologize if you feel my characterization of your process is offensive, it > > certainly wasn't intended to be. > > Thank; enough said here - lets move on :) > > > >> I think you have a very different definition of -core to the rest of > >> OpenStack. I was actually somewhat concerned about the '+2 Guard the > >> gate stuff' at the summit because it's so easily misinterpreted - and > >> there is a meme going around (I don't know if it's true or not) that > >> some people are assessed - performance review stuff within vendor > >> organisations - on becoming core reviewers. > >> > >> Core reviewer is not intended to be a gateway to getting features or > >> ideas into OpenStack projects. It is solely a volunteered contribution > >> to the project: helping the project accept patches with confidence > >> about their long term integrity: providing explanation and guidance to > >> people that want to contribute patches so that their patch can be > >> accepted. > > > > We need core reviewers who: > > 1. Have deep knowledge of the codebase (to identify non-cosmetic structural > > issues) > > mmm, core review is a place to identify really significant structural > issues, but it's not ideal. Because - you do a lot of work before you > push code for review, particularly if it's ones first contribution to > a codebase, and that means a lot of waste when the approach is wrong. > Agree that having -core that can spot this is good, but not convinced > that it's a must.
So you're saying you would give approve rights to someone without sufficient knowledge to recognise the implications of a patch in the context of the whole tree? Of course it's a must. > > 2. Have used and debugged the codebase (to identify usability, interface > > correctness or other stuff which isn't obvious unless you're using the > > code) > > If I may: 2a) Have deployed and used the codebase in production, at > scale. This may conflict with 1) in terms of individual expertise. Having folks involved with experience of running stuff in production is invaluable I agree, I just meant people should have some practical experience outside of the specific feature they may be working on. > > 3. Have demonstrated a commitment to the project (so we know they > > understand the mid-term goals and won't approve stuff which is misaligned > > with those goals) > > I don't understand this. Are you saying you'd turn down contributions > that are aligned with the long term Heat vision because they don't > advance some short term goal? Or are you saying you'd turn down > contributions because they actively harm short term goals? I'm saying people in a position to approve patches should be able to decouple the short term requirements of e.g their employer, or the feature they are interested in, from the long-term goals (e.g maintainability) of the project. We can, and have, turned down contributions because they offered short-term solutions to problems which didn't make sense long term from an upstream perspective (normally with discussion of suitable alternative approaches). > Seems to me that that commitment to the project is really orthogonal > to either of those things - folk may have different interpretations > about what the project needs while still being entirely committed to > it! Perhaps you mean 'shared understanding of current goals and > constraints' ? Or something like that? I am niggling on this point > because I wouldn't want someone who is committed to TripleO but > focused on the big picture to be accused of not being committed to > TripleO. Yeah, shared understanding, I'm saying all -core reviewers should have, and have demonstrated, some grasp of the big picture for the project they control the gate for. Steve _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev