Open Stack

On 07/29/2014 09:01 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 07/29/2014 12:12 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> Sure there was some debate about what criteria were desired acceptance
>> when stable trees were started. Once the criteria are defined I don't
>> think it is credible to say that people are incapable of following the
>> rules. In the unlikely event that people were to willfully ignore the
>> agreed upon rules for stable tree, then I'd not trust them to be part
>> of a core team working on any branch at all. With responsibility comes
>> trust and an acceptance to follow the agreed upon processes.
> 
> I agree with this.  If we can't trust someone on *-core to follow the
> stable criteria, then they shouldn't be on *-core in the first place.
> Further, if we can't trust the combination of *two* people from *-core
> to approve a stable backport, then we're really in trouble.
> 

+1

As a stable-maint, I'm always hesitant to review patches I've no
understanding on, hence I end up just checking how big is the patch,
whether it adds/removes new configuration options etc but, the real
review has to be done by someone with good understanding of the change.

Something I've done in the past is adding the folks that had approved
the patch on master to the stable/maint review. They should know that
code already, which means it shouldn't take them long to review it. All
the sanity checks should've been done already.

With all that said, I'd be happy to give *-core approval permissions on
stable branches, but I still think we need a dedicated team that has a
final (or at least relevant) word on the patches.

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco