Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 20 July 2016 at 19:57, James Bottomley <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com <mailto:james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com>> wrote: OK, I accept your analogy, even though I would view currency as the will to create and push patches. The problem you describe: getting the recipients to listen and accept your patches, is also a common one. The first essential is simple minimal patches because they're hard to reject. Once you've overcome the reject barrier, there's the indifference one (no-one says no, but no-one says yes). [snip] The trouble with drive-by architecture patches (or large feature patches of any kind) is that it is often better *not* to merge them if you don't think the contributor is going to stick around for a while. This changes are usually intrusive, and have repercussions that take time to discover. It's often difficult to keep a change clean when the original author isn't around to review the follow-on work.
Agreed, and knowing where yahoo and HP(e) are at right now (with regards to openstack and ...) these kind of things are a little more prevalent (with regards to quota, tasks...) now-a-days (for better or worse); not how I want it to be but it's reality.
Which I guess is why I'd be nice to have cross-project architecture 'standardization' (? for lack of better word) with a more long term strategic vision (vs localized tactical visions). Such things are obviously not hard to get going (and are equally hard to sustain).
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
