On 09/30/2015 12:11 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
On 13:29 Sep 28, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to
merge by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
policy. The main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other
things"
On 13:29 Sep 28, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
> I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to
> merge by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
> policy. The main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other
> things" and this policy guarantees that for
I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to merge
by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the policy. The
main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other things" and
this policy guarantees that for 75% of the release reviewers don't have
to
I can definitely see your logic, but we've a history in cinder of vendors
trying to cram drivers in at the last minute which we very much wanted to
stop dead. I might suggest that the second milestone, rather than the first
might be a better one to dedicate to driver reviews...
An interesting
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:13:04PM -0600, John Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Ben Swartzlander
> wrote:
>
> > I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to merge
> > by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
On 09/28/2015 02:42 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote:
On 09/28/2015 10:29 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to
merge by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
policy. The main motivation was to free up reviewers to review
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Duncan Thomas
wrote:
> I can definitely see your logic, but we've a history in cinder of vendors
> trying to cram drivers in at the last minute which we very much wanted to
> stop dead. I might suggest that the second milestone, rather
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Ben Swartzlander
wrote:
> I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to merge
> by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the policy. The
> main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other
On 09/28/2015 10:29 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to
merge by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
policy. The main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other
things" and this policy guarantees that for