Open Stack

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:

> On 05/15/2014 11:48 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
> > On 15/05/14 11:40, Gauvain Pocentek wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I guess I should have asked this during this morning's doc session at
> >> the summit, but I hadn't had real coffee yet (only decaf!).
> >>
> >> How do we handle backports reviews? Is one +2 enough (that's what
> >> Andreas used to do during the post havana backport storm)? Is self
> >> approval a valid option?
> >>
> >> I'd like to hear what you guys think.
> >
> > IMO: one sanity-check +2 from someone who is not the submitter
>
>
Yep, agree with this as well (and I know I need it!)

Where's the blueprint? I'm fine with just documenting this standard in the
review guide.

Anne


> Agreed.
>
> Also, backports should not be edited, if there are problems noticed, we
> should do a patch for master to fix those and backport that one,
>
> Andreas
> --
>  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
>   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>    GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
>     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-docs mailing list
> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20140517/c808329f/attachment.html>