Thanks Jay. I agree with your position on it, and that is exactly what I
would expect as the process in a collaborative community. That "feels like
the right way" ;-)
Unfortunately, there have been situations where we have had to ask a
reviewer multiple times to re-review the code (after issues id
On 07/25/2014 05:48 PM, Mandeep Dhami wrote:
Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful.
Also, would it help the process by having some clear
guidelines/expectations around review time as well? In particular, if
you have put a -1 or -2, and the issues that you have identified have
been addres
I agree that it's important to set a guideline for this topic.
What if the said reviewer is "on vacation or indisposed"? Should a fallback
strategy exist for that case? A reviewer could indicate a "delegate core"
to review its -2s whenever he has no chance to do it.
Thanks,
Ivar.
On Fri, Jul 25,
What would be a good guideline for "timely manner"? I would recommend
something like 2-3 days unless the reviewer is on vacation or is
indisposed. Is it possible to update gerrit/jenkins to send reminders to
reviewers in such a scenario?
Regards,
Mandeep
-
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM,
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Mandeep Dhami wrote:
>
> Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful.
>
> Also, would it help the process by having some clear guidelines/expectations
> around review time as well? In particular, if you have put a -1 or -2, and
> the issues that you have identifi
Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful.
Also, would it help the process by having some clear
guidelines/expectations around review time as well? In particular, if you
have put a -1 or -2, and the issues that you have identified have been
addressed by an update (or at least the original auth
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jay Pipes"
>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>
>> On 07/24/2014 10:05 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
>> > Alan Kavanagh wrote:
>> >
>> >> If we have more work being put on the table, then more Core
>> >
- Original Message -
> From: "Jay Pipes"
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>
> On 07/24/2014 10:05 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
> > Alan Kavanagh wrote:
> >
> >> If we have more work being put on the table, then more Core
> >> members would definitely go a long way with assisting this, w
On 07/24/2014 10:05 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
Alan Kavanagh wrote:
If we have more work being put on the table, then more Core
members would definitely go a long way with assisting this, we cant
wait for folks to be reviewing stuff as an excuse to not get
features landed in a given release.
We
On 07/23/2014 06:22 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> Thanks for sending this out Salvatore. We are way oversubscribed,
> and at this point, I'm in agreement on not letting any new
> exceptions which do not fall under the above guidelines. Given how
> much is already packed in there, this makes the most se
Alan Kavanagh wrote:
>If we have more work being put on the table, then more Core members would
>definitely go a long way with assisting this, we cant wait for folks to be
>reviewing stuff as an excuse to not get features landed in a given release.
Stability is absolutely essential so we can't f
g the Openstack Board can
take note of and jump in and try and resolve.
Alan
-Original Message-
From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@mestery.com]
Sent: July-23-14 9:23 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Specs approved
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> I'm sure it is not news to anyone that we already have approved a too many
> specifications for Juno-3. The PTL made clear indeed that "Low priority"
> blueprints are considered best effort.
>
> However, this already leaves us with 23 med
I'm sure it is not news to anyone that we already have approved a too many
specifications for Juno-3. The PTL made clear indeed that "Low priority"
blueprints are considered best effort.
However, this already leaves us with 23 medium to high specifications to
merge in Juno-3. This is already quite
14 matches
Mail list logo
