Open Stack

On 2/23/2015 1:52 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Thanks for bringing it up. We do have guidelines
> here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/ReviewGuidelines so
> feel free to enhance those to help solve the problem.
> Before we do this, I suggest that we experiment a bit with the workflow.
> Nick, could you show us a few examples how this would work, please?

Basically, as far as the ReviewGuidelines, we would add a new type of 
change, making the three possibilities "Objective", "Subjective", and 
"Cosmetic/Convention".  So for a (probably silly, but demonstrative) 
example:

-- You submit a change that adds a new section talking about how to add, 
say, a new driver for Cinder, and everywhere you should have "OpenStack 
Block Storage" you just say "cinder".  You a
-- I review your change, and I see that everything is fine, except for 
those 17 instances of "cinder".
-- From here it can go one of three ways:
-- 1) I comment that I'm going to fix it (so you don't spend time on 
it), then correct them and submit a patch, and +1.
-- 2) I mark them, and you fix them and resubmit.  I +1.
-- 3) I let you know that it needs to be fixed and:
-- -- 3a) you submit a bug and drop it into comments, then I +1 or
-- -- 3b) I submit a bug, then +1

I'll say again: is there a reason we couldn't just give this a try for 
some limited period of time, say a month?  At the end of a month, if we 
have a ton of these "technical debt" bugs I will PERSONALLY commit to 
fixing them.

I know that there are those of you who really feel like this is not a 
great idea, but I look at it this way: there are people who are willing 
to contribute, but can't do the "hard" stuff.  There are people who can 
do the "hard" stuff, but their time is limited. This option has the 
lowest opportunity cost, enabling the "skilled" people to do more of 
what only they can do.

----  Nick