> On 16 Oct 2015, at 19:09, Sean M. Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:36:13AM EDT, Salvatore Orlando wrote: >> It might also make sense to ask contributors to resume the habit of tagging >> bugs with 'backport-potential' even if not in the RC period. > > I like this idea because it'll make Ihar's job easier :)
Kind of you Sean. ;) That said, we are not here to make my job easier but to make our product better. Another point I want to make is that the original plan is described in terms of me doing the initial triage. I don’t want to suggest that I am the eternal one to do it. No, I am not suicidal, but buses drive nearby, so I would be glad if someone tries to take on it once in a while. ;) Another point to consider is that backport proposers do not have +2 for their own backports (well technically they do but it’s countradictory to openstack guidelines). Since I am one of the folks who have +2 in neutron stable stadium, it could be wise to allow someone without the hammer to propose backports and me spending my vote on them. So if folks out of formal neutron-stable-maint group will join the effort, it will be better for everyone, but especially stable branch chasers. Ihar
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
