Open Stack

>
> > Secondly, it's difficult to get stack-analytics credit for back
> > ports, as the preferred method is to cherry pick the code, and
> > that keeps the original author's name. I've personally gotten a
> > few commits into stable, but have nothing to show for it in
> > stack-analytics (if I'm doing it wrong, I'm happy to be
> > corrected).
> [...]
> Stackalytics isn't an official OpenStack project, but you should
> file a bug[2] against it if there's a feature you want its authors
> to consider adding.


Stackalytics tracks commits into stable branches, e.g. for Neutron
stable/juno they are visible at
http://stackalytics.com/?metric=commits&module=neutron&release=juno.
Commits are also shown in activity log for specific project or person, so
if someone interested in pulling them into weekly report - they will be
there.

Thanks,
Ilya

2015-02-10 19:45 GMT+03:00 Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>:

> On 2015-02-10 15:20:46 +0000 (+0000), Kevin Bringard (kevinbri) wrote:
> [...]
> > I've been talking with a few people about this very thing lately,
> > and I think much of it is caused by what appears to be our
> > actively discouraging people from working on it. Most notably, ATC
> > is only being given to folks committing to the current branch
> > (
> https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/45531/atc-pass-for-the-openstack-summit/
> ).
>
> The comments on that answer are somewhat misleading, so I'll follow
> up there as well to set the record straight. The script[1] which
> identifies ATCs for the purpose of technical elections and summit
> passes is based entirely on Gerrit owners (uploaders) of changes
> merged to official projects within a particular time period. It
> doesn't treat master differently from any other branches. People who
> do the work to upload backports to stable branches absolutely do get
> counted for this purpose. People who only review changes uploaded by
> others do not (unless they are manually added to the "extra-atcs"
> file in the openstack/governance repo), but that is the case for all
> branches including master so not something stable-branch specific.
>
> Though I *personally* hope that is not the driving force to convince
> people to work on stable support. If it is, then we've already lost
> on this front.
>
> > Secondly, it's difficult to get stack-analytics credit for back
> > ports, as the preferred method is to cherry pick the code, and
> > that keeps the original author's name. I've personally gotten a
> > few commits into stable, but have nothing to show for it in
> > stack-analytics (if I'm doing it wrong, I'm happy to be
> > corrected).
> [...]
>
> Stackalytics isn't an official OpenStack project, but you should
> file a bug[2] against it if there's a feature you want its authors
> to consider adding.
>
> [1]
> https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/system-config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py
> [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/stackalytics/+filebug
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150210/db035d58/attachment.html>