Open Stack

On 19/09/13 17:10 -0400, Adam Young wrote:
>On 09/19/2013 04:30 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>To take the specific example of the policy API, if someone actively
>>wanted to help the process of moving it into a standalone library should
>>volunteer to help Flavio out as a maintainer:
>>
>>   https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo-incubator/tree/MAINTAINERS
>>
>>   == policy ==
>>
>>   M: Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com>
>>   S: Maintained
>>   F: policy.py
>
>Would it make sense to explicitly add Keystone developers, or can we 
>include the launchpad keystone-core group to this module?
>If we want to keep it per user,  I'm willing to do so, and I think we 
>have a couple of other likely candidates from Keystone:  I'll let 
>then speak up for themselves.
>
I don't think it is possible to have per-file core reviewers. Not sure
what your plans are w.r.t policy.py but there's something still
missing, which is porting other modules to the latest release. 

I'm not saying that Oslo module maintainers are expected to port other OS
modules to the latest version but, since the maintainer knows what's
changed and when that changed, I think it should be the maintainer
taking the first step to align all OS modules.

That being said, I admit I didn't do a great job w.r.t aligning other
OS modules policy code, no excuses there.

If someone from keystone's team wants to become the policy.py
maintainer, I'm happy to give it away, I think keystone guys have more
context than me there.:D

One last thing, there's this blueprint[0] I created that plans to add
some kind of persistence to policy.py - besides policy.json -, IIRC,
there's something already going on in Keystone related to this.
Please, feel free to take the blueprint, add comments, work items and
what not.

[0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/policy-persistence

>Should we submit the names as review requests against the MAINTAINERS 
>file in that repo?
>

Yup

Cheers,
FF

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco