-1 to the proposal. We have the ability (and we use it) to add guys to
several core groups. So, AFAIC, Vladimir's pros point #1 is covered. IMO,
pros point #2 looks questionable and not so important. Cons could be worse
(agree with Lukasz).
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016
Fuel repositories include several languages/technologies (puppet, python,
ruby, make ...) Core engineer nominated for achievements in one project
may have average skills in another language/technology.
So, I give '-1' the suggestion.
However, we may have one group for python project, one
-1 for the proposal
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Alexey Stepanov
> Guys, I have one serious question: WHO will be global core?
> I'm core reviewer in 2 repos, but I'm absolutely could not be core
> reviewer in puppet!
Guys, I have one serious question: WHO will be global core?
I'm core reviewer in 2 repos, but I'm absolutely could not be core
reviewer in puppet!
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
> -1 for the proposal. I see no problems to add guys who're
-1 for the proposal. I see no problems to add guys who're familiar
with various sub-projects to multiple core groups.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Evgeniy L wrote:
> +1 to Lukasz.
> -1 to the proposal, we had it this way for a quite some time, and it was not
> good for the
+1 to Lukasz.
-1 to the proposal, we had it this way for a quite some time, and it was
not good for the project (as Lukasz pointed out), why should a person who
merges the code to the library have an access to merge the code to
Nailgun/Astute without proper expertise. Those are different areas
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Maksimov wrote:
> This is a good proposal, I also think we should have single fuel-core group
> for all repos. In real life core reviewers won't set +2 or merge to repos
> with which they are not familiar with.
Actually one of
+1, I think it is good idea.
> On 05 Sep 2016, at 20:17, Maksim Malchuk wrote:
> I want to clarify my previous reply
> but the new fuel-core would be a small group of the cores who are fully
> involved in the whole Fuel
I want to clarify my previous reply
but the new fuel-core would be a small group of the cores who are fully
involved in the whole Fuel project.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alexey Stepanov
> This is seriously dangerous idea: core-reviewer in fuel-qa
This is seriously dangerous idea: core-reviewer in fuel-qa does not mean
exact skills for +2/W on fuel-octane, for example. Sometimes, because of
limited time, reviewer will press +W without understanding patch detail. In
repo, which he knows, he can fix issue later by itself, but only of he
My vision - we should have something like super-core group with a smaller
number of the current core guys.
This is because a lot of current core guys were switched to the other
projects and already out of the scope.
Such guys still can be cores in their former projects and can help
This is a good proposal, I also think we should have single fuel-core group
for all repos. In real life core reviewers won't set +2 or merge to repos
with which they are not familiar with.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov <
as you most likely remember, we've been there already. The previous
fuel-core group has been split especially due to low number of core
reviewers, too big load on them and inflexibility in promoting valuable
contributors into the group. Worth noting that it was very welcome change.
I see one big problem here - people who have expert skills in one area (for
example, in fuel-library puppet manifests and their logic) will have
ability to set +2 and workflow +1 to reviews in other areas (for example,
in fuel-astute) where they don't have good expertise. It can lead
I'd like to suggest to use common fuel-core group for all Fuel projects
instead of having separate independent 'by-project' core groups like
'fuel-astute-core' or 'fuel-agent-core'.
1) It will be easier to access core members (timezone and holiday tolerance)
2) It will be
Mail list logo