On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just sending this email to try to understand the model for stable branch >>> maintenance in networking-ovn (potentially other neutron drivers too). >>> >>> Right now, only members of the ``neutron-stable-maint`` gerrit group are >>> able to approve patches for the stable branches; this can cause some delays >>> when fixing things (e.g [0]) because we don't have any member in that group >>> that is also a ``networking-ovn-core`` member. So, sometimes we have to go >>> around and ping people to take a look at the patches and it kinda sucks. >> >> >> We had a Gerrit dashboard that helped stable reviewers stay on top of things >> [1], but it looks like it doesn't seem to work anymore. My suggestion would >> be to look into that as the lack of visibility might be the source of the >> recent delay. >> >> [1] >> https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/latest/contributor/dashboards/index.html#gerrit-dashboards > > ++ indeed, lack of visibility is a problem as well.
and lack of visibility of the fix of the dashboard? :-) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/479138/ > >>> Is there any reason why things are set up in that way ? >>> >>> I was wondering if it would make sense to create a new group to help >>> maintaining the stable branches in networking-ovn. The new group could >>> include some of the core members willing to do the work + >>> ``neutron-stable-maint`` as a subgroup. Is that reasonable, what you think >>> about it? >> >> >> Rather than create yet another group(s), it makes sense to have an >> individual from each neutron project participate in the neutron-stable-maint >> team (whose admin rights I think are held by Ihar as neutron member), for >> those of whom have actually an interest in reviewing stable patches :) >> > > Having a member in the current group will help, if you are comfortable > with adding a new member to the current group that would be great. > > The reason why I was leaning towards having another group is because > of scope limitation. Members of the ``neutron-stable-maint`` group can > approve patches for all neutron-related projects stable branches. By > having a separated group, members would only be able to approve things > for a specific project. > > The new group would also have the ``neutron-stable-maint`` as a > sub-group to it , so the members of the original group would still > able approve things everywhere. > > Anyway, either ideas would help with the original problem, I'm good > with whatever approach people thinks is best. > > Cheers, > Lucas > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
