On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I cannot speak for the dynamics of the tripleo team, if this were to
> be adopted in nova I would not +2 any blueprints as I don't think I can
> commit to *guaranteeing* I will have even more review bandwidth, I can make
> best efforts but a personally cannot guarantee.

I'm pretty sure we're all humans here, although there may be some bots
among us :). We're all working on "best effort", there are no 100%

It's a commitment...no point arguing semantics of guarantee vs
commitment. But, it's not about seeking to punish people that are
acting in good faith, who may be unable to deliver on that commitment
for whatever reason.

This is just an attempt to codify and record who is signing up to do
the review workload on a given spec. Why +2 a spec yet not commit to
doing a best effort at reviewing the patches? Is there just hope that
the review burden is going to get "absorbed" by others in the

I think that's the approach that is clearly not working, hence the
different ideas floating around the list about how to limit the scope
of the changes currently in flight. You could say, well, we'll only
have X slots for approved specs at any one time, but that doesn't
address the question of who, if anyone, is going to be giving their
best effort to review those changes. I suppose if things are limited
sufficiently, everyone will have enough time to review everything. The
approach we're suggesting here just looks at the problem differently,
it gives folks the opportunity to say, I'm going to focus on reviewing
these changes without dropping all my other reviews. And of course
this is just one of the criteria laid out on the wiki page before
approving a spec, amongst many.
-- James Slagle

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to