Open Stack

> On 16 Oct 2015, at 17:36, Salvatore Orlando <salv.orlando at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This sounds like a pretty decent idea to me. Considering Neutron's patch merge rate this activity should hopefully not take a consistent chunk of your Friday.

Actually, it does, if you consider other stable maintenance activities like reviewing existing stable backports in all stadium projects (side note: I believe it should not be the sole neutron-stable-maint members responsibility but subprojects should get their stable cores); tracking stable gate state; now walking thru bugs mentioned in commit messages. I would say, it takes ~2h each week to keep up.

But that’s not a big deal, just wanted to give clue.

> It might also make sense to ask contributors to resume the habit of tagging bugs with 'backport-potential' even if not in the RC period.
> 

Yes. Is it even bound to RC period now? I didn’t think so.

Tracking the stable backport tags and moving them from -backport-potential to -in-<release> tags is another thing I want us to do consistently (that would be another element in the process after we are settled with proactive backporting).

> I am glad to offer my help as well in evaluating "backport worthiness", and the process you outlined looks very good to me.
> If there's any discussion needed for assessing whether a bug fix should be backported or not, we could either use the etherpad or launchpad, with a slight preference for launchpad.

Probably links to bugs for discussion in the etherpad and actual discussion in LP? Another alternative is having a separate tag for bugs with unclear backporting status.

Ihar
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151019/7a87f884/attachment.pgp>