[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Nova] Specs and approvals
joe.gordon0 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 19 18:08:07 UTC 2014
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 :)
> 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  vs nova-specs . 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.
> 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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev