On 08/21/2014 03:12 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > I wonder where discussion around the proposal is running. Is it public?
Yes, it's public, and this thread is part of it. Look at the dates of the wiki: this is a recent proposal (first appearance Aug 11), came out to address the GBP issue, quickly iterated over a couple of IRC neutron meetings, and quick phone calls to get early feedback from the GBP team, Octavia and a few others. > Though the way incubator is currently described in that proposal on > the wiki doesn't clearly imply similar benefits for the project, hence > concerns. The rationale for the separate repository is that Neutron's code needs a lot of love for the *existing* codebase, before new features can be added (and before core team can accept more responsibilities for it). But progress is unstoppable: new features are being proposed every cycle and reviewers bandwidth is not infinite. That's the gist of 'Mission' and 'Why a Seperate Repo?' on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Incubator > Of course, we should raise the bar for all the code - already merged, > in review, and in incubator. I just think there is no reason to make > those requirements different from general acceptance requirements (do > we have those formally defined?). yes, there is a reason to request higher standards for any new code, why wouldn't there be? If "legacy" code is struggling to improve test coverage, there is a very good reason not to accept more debt. Not sure it's spelled out and where but I believe it's an accepted and shared best practice among core reviewers not to merge code without tests. /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev