Hello Everyone,

We have quite a large backlog of merge proposals here:

https://code.launchpad.net/~rlane/nova/lp773690/+merge/59565

I've been attempting to go through them to find some high priority ones to 
review.  It seems like people are being pretty active in reviewing branches, 
but there are a lot old branches that haven't been touched in a while.  So 
first I have a general request that anyone who has old branches in for review:  
please update your branches or mark them Work In Progress to remove them from 
the review queue.

I'd also like to propose a change to our process that will make the ready to 
review branches easier to find. I'd like for nova-core to set branches to WIP 
if there are two significant needs fixings or or needs information.  That way 
everyone doesn't have to sort through branches that have already been reviewed 
but are waiting on updates.  We may need to use our judgement here, so if a 
large branch has a needs fixing for a minor typo or some such, you could leave 
it under needs review so it gets viewed by more people.

Here is an example where i think this policy will be useful:

You see a branch that already has a 'Needs Fixing: this needs a failing test".  
If you look at the branch and reach the same conclusion, you can mark it "Needs 
Fixing: I agree, needs a test like xxx" and then set the branch to Work In 
Progress.  When the author has added the test or needs to make more comments, 
he can set it back to Needs Review.

I think this will generally keep the review board a little cleaner and also 
each branch will end up with a couple of people that are queued to review once 
the changes have come in. Does this seem acceptable to everyone?  If I don't 
here any major dissents, I will add this info to the wiki and we can put it 
into practice.

Vish
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to     : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to