Open Stack

I was on vacation last week and am late to the discussion, but I'm +1 
for the idea.

On 08/19/2014 02:08 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>