Open Stack

Julia Kreger wrote:
> [...]
> In essence, our stable branch approvers are largely down to Dmitry,
> Riccardo, and Myself. I think this needs to change and I'd like to
> propose that we go ahead and change ironic-stable-maint to just
> include ironic-core in order to prevent the bottleneck and conflict
> and risk which this presents.
> 
> I strongly believe that our existing cores would all do the right
> thing if presented with the question of if a change needed to be
> merged. So honestly I'm not concerned by this proposal. Plus, some of
> our sub-projects have operated this way for quite some time.
> 
> Thoughts, concerns, worries?

Sounds good to me.

Stable branch backport approvals follow different rules from development 
branch changes, which is why historically we used separate groups -- so 
that all -core do not need to know the stable policy rules.

But today -core groups evolve less quickly and can probably be taught 
the stable policy, so I'm not too concerned either. Maybe it's a good 
time to remind them of the stable policy doc though, in particular the 
"appropriate fixes" section:

https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html

Cheers,

-- 
Thierry