Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:06:13AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hey
> > 
> > (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
> > 
> > From the version_cap saga here:
> > 
> >   https://review.openstack.org/110754
> > 
> > I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
> > like this.
> > 
> > Here's my attempt at documenting what I think we're expecting the
> > procedure to be:
> > 
> >   https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-retrospective-veto-revert-policy
> > 
> > If it sounds reasonably sane, I can propose its addition to the
> > "Development policies" doc.
> 
> (In the spirit of "we really need to step back and laugh at ourselves
> sometimes" ... )
> 
> Two years ago, we were worried about patches getting merged in less than
> 2 hours and had a discussion about imposing a minimum review time. How
> times have changed! Is it even possible to land a patch in less than two
> hours now? :)
> 
> Looking back over the thread, this part stopped me in my tracks:
> 
>   https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08625.html
> 
>     On Tue, Mar 13, 2012, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>     > Sometimes there can be a few folks working through an issue together and
>     > the patch gets pushed and approved so quickly that no-one else gets a
>     > chance to review.
> 
>     Everyone has an opportunity to review even after a patch gets merged.
> 
>     JE
> 
> It's not quite perfect, but if you squint you could conclude that
> Johannes and I have both completely reversed our opinions in the
> intervening two years :)
> 
> The lesson I take from that is to not get too caught up in the current
> moment. We're growing and evolving rapidly. If we assume everyone is
> acting in good faith, and allow each other to debate earnestly without
> feelings getting hurt ... we should be able to work through anything.
> 
> Now, back on topic - digging through that thread, it doesn't seem we
> settled on the idea of "we can just revert it later if someone has an
> objection" in this thread. Does anyone recall when that idea first came
> up?

Probably lost in time - I've seen it said several times on Nova IRC
channel over the year(s) when we made a strategic decision to merge
something quickly.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|