I was on vacation last week and am late to the discussion, but I'm +1 for the idea.

On 08/19/2014 02:08 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:



On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com
<mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> 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
    OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
    <mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to