> -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Treinish [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 09 November 2015 22:40 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] Making stable maintenance its own > OpenStack project team > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2015-11-09 16:05:29 -0600: > > > > > > On 11/9/2015 10:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > A few cycles ago we set up the Release Cycle Management team which > > > > was a bit of a frankenteam of the things I happened to be leading: > > > > release management, stable branch maintenance and vulnerability > management. > > > > While you could argue that there was some overlap between those > > > > functions (as in, "all these things need to be released") logic > > > > was not the primary reason they were put together. > > > > > > > > When the Security Team was created, the VMT was spinned out of the > > > > Release Cycle Management team and joined there. Now I think we > > > > should spin out stable branch maintenance as well: > > > > > > > > * A good chunk of the stable team work used to be stable point > > > > release management, but as of stable/liberty this is now done by > > > > the release management team and triggered by the project-specific > > > > stable maintenance teams, so there is no more overlap in tooling > > > > used there > > > > > > > > * Following the kilo reform, the stable team is now focused on > > > > defining and enforcing a common stable branch policy[1], rather > > > > than approving every patch. Being more visible and having more > > > > dedicated members can only help in that very specific mission > > > > > > > > * The release team is now headed by Doug Hellmann, who is focused > > > > on release management and does not have the history I had with > > > > stable branch policy. So it might be the right moment to refocus > > > > release management solely on release management and get the stable > > > > team its own leadership > > > > > > > > * Empowering that team to make its own decisions, giving it more > > > > visibility and recognition will hopefully lead to more resources > > > > being dedicated to it > > > > > > > > * If the team expands, it could finally own stable branch health > > > > and gate fixing. If that ends up all falling under the same roof, > > > > that team could make decisions on support timeframes as well, > > > > since it will be the primary resource to make that work > > > > > > Isn't this kind of already what the stable maint team does? Well, > > > that and some QA people like mtreinish and sdague. > > > > > > > > > > > So.. good idea ? bad idea ? What do current stable-maint-core[2] > > > > members think of that ? Who thinks they could step up to lead that > team ? > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html > > > > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/530,members > > > > > > > > > > With the decentralizing of the stable branch stuff in Liberty [1] it > > > seems like there would be less use for a PTL for stable branch > > > maintenance - the cats are now herding themselves, right? Or at > > > least that's the plan as far as I understood it. And the existing > > > stable branch wizards are more or less around for help and answering > questions. > > > > The same might be said about releasing from master and the release > > management team. There's still some benefit to having people dedicated > > to making sure projects all agree to sane policies and to keep up with > > deliverables that need to be released. > > Except the distinction is that relmgt is actually producing something. Relmgt > has the releases repo which does centralize library releases, reno to do the > release notes, etc. What does the global stable core do? Right now it's there > almost entirely to just add people to the project specific stable core teams. > > -Matt Treinish
I'd like to move the discussion from what are the roles of the current stable-maint-core and more towards what the benefits would be having a stable-maint team rather than the -core group alone. Personally I think the stable maintenance should be quite a lot more than unblocking gate and approving people allowed to merge to the stable branches. - Erno > > > > > > > [1] > > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-November/078 > > > 281.html > > > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
