On 2015-02-10 15:20:46 +0000 (+0000), Kevin Bringard (kevinbri) wrote:
> I've been talking with a few people about this very thing lately,
> and I think much of it is caused by what appears to be our
> actively discouraging people from working on it. Most notably, ATC
> is only being given to folks committing to the current branch
> (https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/45531/atc-pass-for-the-openstack-summit/).

The comments on that answer are somewhat misleading, so I'll follow
up there as well to set the record straight. The script[1] which
identifies ATCs for the purpose of technical elections and summit
passes is based entirely on Gerrit owners (uploaders) of changes
merged to official projects within a particular time period. It
doesn't treat master differently from any other branches. People who
do the work to upload backports to stable branches absolutely do get
counted for this purpose. People who only review changes uploaded by
others do not (unless they are manually added to the "extra-atcs"
file in the openstack/governance repo), but that is the case for all
branches including master so not something stable-branch specific.

Though I *personally* hope that is not the driving force to convince
people to work on stable support. If it is, then we've already lost
on this front.

> Secondly, it's difficult to get stack-analytics credit for back
> ports, as the preferred method is to cherry pick the code, and
> that keeps the original author's name. I've personally gotten a
> few commits into stable, but have nothing to show for it in
> stack-analytics (if I'm doing it wrong, I'm happy to be
> corrected).

Stackalytics isn't an official OpenStack project, but you should
file a bug[2] against it if there's a feature you want its authors
to consider adding.

[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/stackalytics/+filebug
Jeremy Stanley

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to