Open Stack

2011/3/31 Todd Willey <todd at ansolabs.com>:
> I haven't disagreed with those points.  I'm not advocating the removal
> of blueprints or changing the way we select release goals.  I only
> don't want to be so strict that we push back against our users instead
> of being their allies.

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating: If this were
about patches from "outsiders", i.e. people who are new to the project
and hence couldn't be reasonably expected to be acquainted with our
release process, I'd feel much less strongly about. The patches and
features in question came from regulars. Core (or should-be-core)
developers. If we can't even be bothered to follow our own procedures,
how can we tell anyone else to? If we really care about "pushing back
against our users", we should be leading by example, and holding
ourselves to an even higher standard than we expect from everyone
else.

> * Let's all be nice to our user-contributors

I don't think it's nice of us to say, "these are the rules of the
project. We expect you to follow them." and then go and apply a
different set of rules to ourselves.

I have a couple of feature branches myself that I specifically decided
not to propose. I could have had them done early last week, so after
BMPF, but before FF, but I simply cannot keep a straight face while

 * spending time working on feature patches after BMPF,
 * proposing feature patches after BMPF, and
 * telling other people not to do any of these things.

...all at the same time.


What I *do* think is nice, is to favour the users that actually did as
we told them to and focus on reviewing their stuff and helping them get
things in shape instead of spending time adding more features to an
already frozen tree. I'm not even sure we made good on our promise to
review everything that was proposed in time for branch merge proposal
freeze. I sure hope so, but honestly haven't checked.

-- 
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Developer    http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer http://www.openstack.org/