Open Stack

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The situation I'm seeing is that the broader community believe that
> the Nova core team is responsible for the nova stable branches. When
> stuff sits in review for ages it is the core team that is getting
> pinged about it and on the receiving end of the complaints the
> inaction of review.

I would be interested to know who is actually complaining... This was
supposed to be a closed loop area: consumers of the branches are the
ones who maintain it. So they can't complain it's not up to date -- it's
their work to maintain it. I think that's a very self-healing situation,
and changing from that (by making it yet another core reviewers duty)
sounds very dangerous to me.

FWIW changes tend to get picked up by the stable point release manager
as they get closer to a point release. There is one due soon so I expect
a peak of activity soon. Also note that stable branch maintainers have
their own mailing-list:

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-stable-maint

>> We need to ensure those -core people know the stable branch acceptance
>> rules before we grant them +2 there.
> 
> I think that's a really weak argument against having core team to take
> part in the stable branch approval. If the rules are outlined somewhere
> on the wiki anyone I know on the core team is more than capable of
> reading & following them. 

They are certainly capable (and generally make good stable-maint
candidates). But that's not work they signed up for. I prefer that work
to be opt-in rather than add to the plate of core reviewers by making
them all collectively responsible for stable branch maintenance too.

Rules are here, btw:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)