On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > > Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews > > seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting. > > > > I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak: > > > > 19:46:34 <lifeless> so I propose that +2 on a spec is a commitment to > > review it over-and-above the core review responsibilities > > 19:47:05 <lifeless> if its not important enough for a reviewer to do > > that thats a pretty strong signal > > 19:47:06 <dprince> lifeless: +1, I thought we already agreed to that > > at the meetup > > 19:47:17 <slagle> yea, sounds fine to me > > 19:47:20 <bnemec> +1 > > 19:47:30 <lifeless> dprince: it wasn't clear whether it was > > part-of-responsibility, or additive, I'm proposing we make it clearly > > additive > > 19:47:52 <lifeless> and separately I think we need to make surfacing > > reviews-for-themes a lot better > > > > That is - +1 on a spec review is 'sure, I like it', +2 is specifically > > "I will review this *over and above* my core commitment" - the goal > > here is to have some very gentle choke on concurrent WIP without > > needing the transition to a managed pull workflow that Nova are > > discussing - which we didn't have much support for during the meeting. > > > > Obviously, any core can -2 for any of the usual reasons - this motion > > is about opening up +A to the whole Tripleo core team on specs. > > > > Reviewers, and other interested kibbitzers, please +1 / -1 as you feel > fit :) > > +1 > > I really like this. In fact, I like it a lot more than the current > proposal for Nova. I think the Nova team should consider this, as well. > Nova and tripleo are at different points in there lifecycle just look at tripleo-specs [0] vs nova-specs [1]. TripleO has 11 specs and nova has 80+, TripleO has 22 cores and nova has 21 cores. AFAIK none of the tripleo specs are vendor specific, while a good chunk of nova ones are. I don't think there is a one size fits all solution here. [0] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/tripleo-specs/ [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/ > It still rate limits code reviews by making core reviewers explicitly > commit to reviewing things. This is like our previous attempt at > sponsoring blueprints, but the use of gerrit I think would make it more > successful. > > It also addresses my primary concerns with the tensions between "group > will" and small groups no longer being able to self organize and push > things to completion without having to haggle through yet another process. > > -- > Russell Bryant > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
