openstack team mailing list archive

[Dave Walker <DaveWalker@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:02:23AM -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> > But wait! Vish +2ed a stable branch patch yesterday:
> >
> >   https://review.openstack.org/328
> >
> > James, help a poor confused soul out here, would you? :)
> >
> > Right, that makes sense. Only folks that understand the stable branch
> > policy[1] should be allowed to +2 on the stable branch.
> >
> > Basically, a stable branch reviewer should only +2 if:
> >
> >   - It fixes a significant issue, seen, or potentially seen, by someone
> >     during real life use
> >
> >   - The fix, or equivalent, must be in master already
> >
> >   - The fix was either a fairly trivial cherry-pick that looks 
> >     equally correct for the stable branch, or that the fix has 
> >     sufficient technical review (e.g. a +1 from another stable 
> >     reviewer if it's fairly straightforward, or one or more +1s from 
> >     folks on core it it's really gnarly)
> >
> >   - If this reviewer proposed the patch originally, another stable
> >     branch reviewer should have +1ed it 
> >
> > All we need is an understanding of the policy and reasonable judgement,
> > it's not rocket science. I'd encourage folks to apply to the team for
> > membership after reviewing a few patches.
> 
> It sounds like the best way to implement this policy is to give
> openstack-stable-maint exclusive approval authority on stable branches,
> and then make sure people understand those rules when adding them to
> that team.  If that's the consensus, I can make the change.

Hi,

Thanks for helping to add clarification to this.  From our
perspective, I have confidence that ~*-core members know the
difference between trunk and stable policy.  Therefore for the short
term, it makes sense to have more eyes - especially those which are
likely to have good knowledge of the internals.

Therefore, I am happy for ~*-core to still have +2 access; especially
if it helps seed the maint team.

Going forward, it probably will make sense to have a distinction, but
I feel it might be quite early for that to be a requirement.

Thanks.

Kind Regards,
Dave Walker

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature