On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
> From the version_cap saga here:
>   https://review.openstack.org/110754
> I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
> like this.
> Here's my attempt at documenting what I think we're expecting the
> procedure to be:
>   https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-retrospective-veto-revert-policy
> If it sounds reasonably sane, I can propose its addition to the
> "Development policies" doc.

(In the spirit of "we really need to step back and laugh at ourselves
sometimes" ... )

Two years ago, we were worried about patches getting merged in less than
2 hours and had a discussion about imposing a minimum review time. How
times have changed! Is it even possible to land a patch in less than two
hours now? :)

Looking back over the thread, this part stopped me in my tracks:


    On Tue, Mar 13, 2012, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    > Sometimes there can be a few folks working through an issue together and
    > the patch gets pushed and approved so quickly that no-one else gets a
    > chance to review.

    Everyone has an opportunity to review even after a patch gets merged.


It's not quite perfect, but if you squint you could conclude that
Johannes and I have both completely reversed our opinions in the
intervening two years :)

The lesson I take from that is to not get too caught up in the current
moment. We're growing and evolving rapidly. If we assume everyone is
acting in good faith, and allow each other to debate earnestly without
feelings getting hurt ... we should be able to work through anything.

Now, back on topic - digging through that thread, it doesn't seem we
settled on the idea of "we can just revert it later if someone has an
objection" in this thread. Does anyone recall when that idea first came


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to