Open Stack

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 08/19/2014 05:31 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> > Hey everybody - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/SpecReviews
> > seems pretty sane as we discussed at the last TripleO IRC meeting.
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we adopt it with the following tweak:
> >
> > 19:46:34 <lifeless> so I propose that +2 on a spec is a commitment to
> > review it over-and-above the core review responsibilities
> > 19:47:05 <lifeless> if its not important enough for a reviewer to do
> > that thats a pretty strong signal
> > 19:47:06 <dprince> lifeless: +1, I thought we already agreed to that
> > at the meetup
> > 19:47:17 <slagle> yea, sounds fine to me
> > 19:47:20 <bnemec> +1
> > 19:47:30 <lifeless> dprince: it wasn't clear whether it was
> > part-of-responsibility, or additive, I'm proposing we make it clearly
> > additive
> > 19:47:52 <lifeless> and separately I think we need to make surfacing
> > reviews-for-themes a lot better
> >
> > That is - +1 on a spec review is 'sure, I like it', +2 is specifically
> > "I will review this *over and above* my core commitment" - the goal
> > here is to have some very gentle choke on concurrent WIP without
> > needing the transition to a managed pull workflow that Nova are
> > discussing - which we didn't have much support for during the meeting.
> >
> > Obviously, any core can -2 for any of the usual reasons - this motion
> > is about opening up +A to the whole Tripleo core team on specs.
> >
> > Reviewers, and other interested kibbitzers, please +1 / -1 as you feel
> fit :)
>
> +1
>
> I really like this.  In fact, I like it a lot more than the current
> proposal for Nova.  I think the Nova team should consider this, as well.
>

Nova and tripleo are at different points in there lifecycle just look at
tripleo-specs [0] vs nova-specs [1]. TripleO has 11 specs and nova has 80+,
TripleO has 22 cores and nova has 21 cores.  AFAIK none of the tripleo
specs are vendor specific, while a good chunk of nova ones are. I don't
think there is a one size fits all solution here.


[0] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/tripleo-specs/
[1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/


> It still rate limits code reviews by making core reviewers explicitly
> commit to reviewing things.  This is like our previous attempt at
> sponsoring blueprints, but the use of gerrit I think would make it more
> successful.
>
> It also addresses my primary concerns with the tensions between "group
> will" and small groups no longer being able to self organize and push
> things to completion without having to haggle through yet another process.
>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140819/4afc6c05/attachment.html>