<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body>
Overall I think this is a good idea and the time frame proposal also
looks good. Few suggestions in-line.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/6/15 10:36 AM, Flavio Percoco
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20151006143653.GE23976@redhat.com" type="cite">Greetings,
<br>
<br>
Not so long ago, Erno started a thread[0] in this list to discuss
the
<br>
abandon policies for patches that haven't been updated in Glance.
<br>
<br>
I'd like to go forward and start following that policy with some
<br>
changes that you can find below:
<br>
<br>
1) Lets do this on patches that haven't had any activity in the
last 2
<br>
months. This adds one more month to Erno's proposal. The reason
being
<br>
that during the lat cycle, there were some ups and downs in the
review
<br>
flow that caused some patches to get stuck.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
+2 . I think 2 months is a reasonable time frame. Though, I think
this should be done on glance , python-glanceclient and glance-store
repos and not glance-specs. Specs can sometimes need to sit and wait
while discussion may happen at other places and then a gist is added
back the spec.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20151006143653.GE23976@redhat.com" type="cite">2)
Do this just on master, for all patches regardless they fix a
<br>
bug or implement a spec and for all patches regardless their
review
<br>
status.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
+2 . No comments, looks clean.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20151006143653.GE23976@redhat.com" type="cite">3)
The patch will be first marked as a WIP and then abandoned if the
<br>
patch is not updated in 1 week. This will put this patches at the
<br>
begining of the queue but using the Glance review dashboard should
<br>
help keeing focus.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
While I think that one may give someone a email/irc heads up if the
proposer doesn't show up and we will use the context and wisdom of
feedback this sorta seems to imply for a general case when a
developer is new and their intent to get a patch in one cycle isn't
clear. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20151006143653.GE23976@redhat.com" type="cite">Unless
there are some critical things missing in the above or strong
<br>
opiniones against this, I'll make this effective starting next
Monday
<br>
October 12th.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I added some comments above for possible brainstorming. No serious
objections, looking forward to this cleanup process.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20151006143653.GE23976@redhat.com" type="cite">Best
regards,
<br>
Flavio
<br>
<br>
[0]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-February/056829.html">http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-February/056829.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Thanks,
Nikhil</pre>
</body>
</html>