Open Stack

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Roger Luethi <rl at patchworkscience.org>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:46:41 +0100, Pranav Salunke wrote:
> > Roger, sometimes there is not an urgent need for improvement but that
> > does not mean that we stop improving (IMHO). If I recall correctly, we
> > decided to not have 2 x +2's due to the size of our core-reviewer team.
> > Now that we will have more core reviewers, it should be considered.
>
> I agree with all of that. We are considering it, and right now I am
> skeptical. So let me rephrase my question: do we expect a 2x +2 requirement
> to provide a net benefit in the forseeable future (Kilo cycle)?
>
>
It's a good question, and here's my input. In the early days of docs, we
had three of us, and really it was just me merging my own patches. But then
when we got a few more people, say less than 10, I would still merge things
for speed as needed, but tried to wait for reviews. As the reviews got more
valuable, then waiting for the second +2 was really worthwhile. Plus, it
caused us to get to know each other better by reaching out for that second
review. So I think it's valuable to strive for two +2s, and the training
group may be at that tipping point.

Anne


> Roger
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-docs mailing list
> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20141213/1cadbf03/attachment.html>