Open Stack

On 06/10/15 12:11 -0400, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
>Overall I think this is a good idea and the time frame proposal also looks
>good. Few suggestions in-line.
>
>On 10/6/15 10:36 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>
>    Greetings,
>
>    Not so long ago, Erno started a thread[0] in this list to discuss the
>    abandon policies for patches that haven't been updated in Glance.
>
>    I'd like to go forward and start following that policy with some
>    changes that you can find below:
>
>    1) Lets do this on patches that haven't had any activity in the last 2
>    months. This adds one more month to Erno's proposal. The reason being
>    that during the lat cycle, there were some ups and downs in the review
>    flow that caused some patches to get stuck.
>
>
>
>+2 . I think 2 months is a reasonable time frame. Though, I think this should
>be done on glance , python-glanceclient and glance-store repos and not
>glance-specs. Specs can sometimes need to sit and wait while discussion may
>happen at other places and then a gist is added back the spec.

Yup, no plans to apply this to glance-specs, just code.

Thanks for the feedback,
Flavio

>
>
>    2) Do this just on master, for all patches regardless they fix a
>    bug or implement a spec and for all patches regardless their review
>    status.
>
>
>
>+2 . No comments, looks clean.
>
>
>    3) The patch will be first marked as a WIP and then abandoned if the
>    patch is not updated in 1 week. This will put this patches at the
>    begining of the queue but using the Glance review dashboard should
>    help keeing focus.
>
>
>
>While I think that one may give someone a email/irc heads up if the proposer
>doesn't show up and we will use the context and wisdom of feedback this sorta
>seems to imply for a general case when a developer is new and their intent to
>get a patch in one cycle isn't clear.
>
>
>    Unless there are some critical things missing in the above or strong
>    opiniones against this, I'll make this effective starting next Monday
>    October 12th.
>
>
>
>I added some comments above for possible brainstorming. No serious objections,
>looking forward to this cleanup process.
>
>
>    Best regards,
>    Flavio
>
>    [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-February/
>    056829.html
>
>
>
>   
>
>    __________________________________________________________________________
>    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
>
>
>--
>
>Thanks,
>Nikhil
>

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151007/3366434e/attachment.pgp>