Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-30 Thread Ben Swartzlander
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"

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-30 Thread Mike Perez
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

[openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-28 Thread Ben Swartzlander
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-28 Thread Duncan Thomas
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-28 Thread Sean McGinnis
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-28 Thread Ben Swartzlander
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-28 Thread John Griffith
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-28 Thread John Griffith
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The Absurdity of the Milestone-1 Deadline for Drivers

2015-09-28 Thread Walter A. Boring IV
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