Mark McLoughlin wrote:
[...]
I don't see how any self-respecting open-source project can throw a
release over the wall and have no ability to address critical bugs with
that release until the next release 6 months later which will also
include a bunch of new feature work with new bugs. That's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 18/08/14 11:00, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
[...] I don't see how any self-respecting open-source project can
throw a release over the wall and have no ability to address
critical bugs with that release until the next release
On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 14:04 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Ihar Hrachyshka a écrit :
On 29/07/14 12:15, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Looking at the current review backlog I think that we have to
seriously question whether our stable branch review process in
Nova is working to an acceptable
Russell Bryant wrote:
On 07/30/2014 01:22 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
Maybe what we need to do is give *-core permission to +2 the patches,
but only stable/maint team has *approval* permission. Then, the cores
can review the code, and stable/maint only has to verify applicability
to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 30/07/14 19:22, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 09:01 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
As a stable-maint, I'm always hesitant to review patches I've no
understanding on, hence I end up just checking how big is the
patch, whether
On 2014-07-31 10:17:16 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
That's a good idea. We would probably switch to $PROJECT-stable-maint
teams then (each including $PROJECT-core and the general stable-maint
team) since we don't have a group in Gerrit for *-core anyway.
[...]
I think we can actually
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2014-07-31 10:17:16 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
That's a good idea. We would probably switch to $PROJECT-stable-maint
teams then (each including $PROJECT-core and the general stable-maint
team) since we don't have a group in Gerrit for *-core anyway.
[...]
On 07/29/2014 09:01 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 07/29/2014 12:12 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Sure there was some debate about what criteria were desired acceptance
when stable trees were started. Once the criteria are defined I don't
think it is credible to say that people are incapable of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 29/07/14 18:12, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:30:09AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 07/29/2014 06:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:04:42PM +0200, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
Ihar Hrachyshka a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:16:00AM +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 29/07/14 18:12, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:30:09AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 07/29/2014 06:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014
Russell Bryant wrote:
On 07/29/2014 12:12 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Sure there was some debate about what criteria were desired acceptance
when stable trees were started. Once the criteria are defined I don't
think it is credible to say that people are incapable of following the
rules. In
On 07/30/2014 02:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:16:00AM +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 29/07/14 18:12, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:30:09AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 07/29/2014 06:13 AM,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
On 07/29/2014 12:12 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Sure there was some debate about what criteria were desired acceptance
when stable trees were started. Once the criteria are defined I don't
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 09:01 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
As a stable-maint, I'm always hesitant to review patches I've no
understanding on, hence I end up just checking how big is the patch,
whether it adds/removes new configuration options etc but, the real
review has to be done by someone
On 7/30/14, 8:22 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com
wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 09:01 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
As a stable-maint, I'm always hesitant to review patches I've no
understanding on, hence I end up just checking how big is the patch,
whether it adds/removes
On 07/30/2014 01:22 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 09:01 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
As a stable-maint, I'm always hesitant to review patches I've no
understanding on, hence I end up just checking how big is the patch,
whether it adds/removes new configuration options etc
From: Gary Kotton [mailto:gkot...@vmware.com]
On 7/30/14, 8:22 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com
wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 09:01 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
As a stable-maint, I'm always hesitant to review patches I've no
understanding on, hence I end up just
Looking at the current review backlog I think that we have to
seriously question whether our stable branch review process in
Nova is working to an acceptable level
On Havana
- 43 patches pending
- 19 patches with a single +2
- 1 patch with a -1
- 0 patches wit a -2
- Stalest waiting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 29/07/14 12:15, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Looking at the current review backlog I think that we have to
seriously question whether our stable branch review process in
Nova is working to an acceptable level
On Havana
- 43 patches
Ihar Hrachyshka a écrit :
On 29/07/14 12:15, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Looking at the current review backlog I think that we have to
seriously question whether our stable branch review process in
Nova is working to an acceptable level
On Havana
- 43 patches pending
- 19 patches with
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:04:42PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Ihar Hrachyshka a écrit :
At the dawn of time there were no OpenStack stable branches, each
distribution was maintaining its own stable branches, duplicating the
backporting work. At some point it was suggested (mostly by RedHat
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
The situation I'm seeing is that the broader community believe that
the Nova core team is responsible for the nova stable branches. When
stuff sits in review for ages it is the core team that is getting
pinged about it and on the receiving end of the complaints the
On 07/29/2014 06:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:04:42PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Ihar Hrachyshka a écrit :
At the dawn of time there were no OpenStack stable branches, each
distribution was maintaining its own stable branches, duplicating the
backporting work.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:30:09AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 07/29/2014 06:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:04:42PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Ihar Hrachyshka a écrit :
At the dawn of time there were no OpenStack stable branches, each
distribution was maintaining
On 07/29/2014 12:12 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Sure there was some debate about what criteria were desired acceptance
when stable trees were started. Once the criteria are defined I don't
think it is credible to say that people are incapable of following the
rules. In the unlikely event
25 matches
Mail list logo