Open Stack

On 14/07/14 19:11, Ben Nemec wrote:
> +1.  In my experience they've both demonstrated that they know what
> they're doing.
> 
> I think the bikeshedding/grammar nits on specs is kind of a separate
> issue that will need to be worked out in general.  It's still very early
> on in this new *-specs repo world, and I think everyone's still trying
> to figure out where to draw the line on how much grammar/spelling
> nit-picking is appropriate.

+1 from me too for both.

I agree with the gist of Tomas comments but I really agree with Ben's
comments above ... trying to convey 'rules' about what constitutes
bikeshedding is basically impossible given that there will be varying
opinions.

In any case, if it really is just e.g.  a 'rephrase' or a
small/inconsequential commit message nit/typo and as echoed by others
here, you can just make a suggestion. A +1 (and not a -1 or even a +2
for example) should be sufficient to make that suggestion. Then its up
to others to vote either way, and you haven't held up progress with a
-1, just my 2c,

thanks, marios

> 
> -Ben
> 
> On 07/09/2014 10:52 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> I've been looking at the statistics, and doing a bit of review of the
>> reviewers, and I think we have an opportunity to expand the core reviewer
>> team in TripleO. We absolutely need the help, and I think these two
>> individuals are well positioned to do that.
>>
>> I would like to draw your attention to this page:
>>
>> http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt
>>
>> Specifically these two lines:
>>
>> +-------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
>> |      Reviewer     | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A    +/- % | Disagreements* |
>> +-------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
>> |  jonpaul-sullivan |     188    0  43 145   0   0    77.1% |   28 ( 14.9%)  |
>> |       lxsli       |     186    0  23 163   0   0    87.6% |   27 ( 14.5%)  |
>>
>> Note that they are right at the level we expect, 3 per work day. And
>> I've looked through their reviews and code contributions: it is clear
>> that they understand what we're trying to do in TripleO, and how it all
>> works. I am a little dismayed at the slightly high disagreement rate,
>> but looking through the disagreements, most of them were jp and lxsli
>> being more demanding of submitters, so I am less dismayed.
>>
>> So, I propose that we add jonpaul-sullivan and lxsli to the TripleO core
>> reviewer team.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> 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
>