+1. And the review process should be more efficient!
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Stefano Maffulli <stef...@openstack.org> wrote: > On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote: > > That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a > smartest > > reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t. > > And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints' and nobody > caught it where it supposed to be caught so I fear that something failed > badly here: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89469/10 > > What failed and how we make sure this doesn't happen again? This to me > is the most important question to answer. If I remember correctly we > introduced the concept of Specs exactly to discuss on the ideas *before* > the implementation starts. We wanted things like architecture, naming > conventions and other important decisions to be socialized and agreed > upon *before* code was proposed. We wanted to avoid developers to spend > time implementing features in ways that are incompatible and likely to > be rejected at code review time. And yet, here we are. > > Something failed and I would ask for all core reviewers to sit down and > do an exercise to identify the root cause. If you want we can start from > this specific case, do some simple root cause analysis together and take > GBP as an example. Thoughts? > > /stef > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Best wishes! Baohua
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
