Steven Dake wrote:
> My general take is workflow would fit in the Orchestration program, but
> not be integrated into the heat repo specifically. It would be a
> different repo, managed by the same orchestration program just as we
> have heat-cfntools and other repositories. Figuring out how to handle
> the who is the core team of people responsible for program's individual
> repositories is the most difficult aspect of making such a merge. For
> example, I'd not desire a bunch of folks from Murano +2/+A heat specific
> repos until they understood the code base in detail, or atleast the
> broad architecture. I think the same think applies in reverse from the
> Murano perspective. Ideally folks that are core on a specific program
> would need to figure out how to learn how to broadly review each repo
> (meaning the heat devs would have to come up to speed on murano and
> murano devs would have to come up to speed on heat. Learning a new code
> base is a big commitment for an already overtaxed core team.
Being in the same program means you share the same team and PTL, not
necessarily that all projects under the program have the same core
review team. So you could have different core reviewers for both
(although I'd encourage the core for ones become core for the other,
since it will facilitate behaving like a coherent team). You could also
have a single core team with clear expectations set ("do not approve
changes for code you're not familiar with").
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
