On 09/03/2014 07:31 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
On 9/3/14, 12:50 PM, "Nikola Đipanov" <[email protected]> wrote:On 09/02/2014 09:23 PM, Michael Still wrote:On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Nikola Đipanov <[email protected]> wrote:On 09/02/2014 08:16 PM, Michael Still wrote:Hi. We're soon to hit feature freeze, as discussed in Thierry's recent email. I'd like to outline the process for requesting a freeze exception: * your code must already be up for review * your blueprint must have an approved spec * you need three (3) sponsoring cores for an exception to be grantedCan core reviewers who have features up for review have this number lowered to two (2) sponsoring cores, as they in reality then need four (4) cores (since they themselves are one (1) core but cannot really vote) making it an order of magnitude more difficult for them to hit this checkbox?That's a lot of numbers in that there paragraph. Let me re-phrase your question... Can a core sponsor an exception they themselves propose? I don't have a problem with someone doing that, but you need to remember that does reduce the number of people who have agreed to review the code for that exception.Michael has correctly picked up on a hint of snark in my email, so let me explain where I was going with that: The reason many features including my own may not make the FF is not because there was not enough buy in from the core team (let's be completely honest - I have 3+ other core members working for the same company that are by nature of things easier to convince), but because of any of the following: * Crippling technical debt in some of the key parts of the code * that we have not been acknowledging as such for a long time * which leads to proposed code being arbitrarily delayed once it makes the glaring flaws in the underlying infra apparent * and that specs process has been completely and utterly useless in helping uncover (not that process itself is useless, it is very useful for other things) I am almost positive we can turn this rather dire situation around easily in a matter of months, but we need to start doing it! It will not happen through pinning arbitrary numbers to arbitrary processes. I will follow up with a more detailed email about what I believe we are missing, once the FF settles and I have applied some soothing creme to my burnout wounds, but currently my sentiment is: Contributing features to Nova nowadays SUCKS!!1 (even as a core reviewer) We _have_ to change that!+1 Sadly what you have written above is true. The current process does not encourage new developers in Nova. I really think that we need to work on improving our community. I really think that maybe we should sit as a community at the summit and talk about this.
+2
N.Michael* exceptions must be granted before midnight, Friday this week (September 5) UTC * the exception is valid until midnight Friday next week (September 12) UTC when all exceptions expire For reference, our rc1 drops on approximately 25 September, so the exception period needs to be short to maximise stabilization time. John Garbutt and I will both be granting exceptions, to maximise our timezone coverage. We will grant exceptions as they come in and gather the required number of cores, although I have also carved some time out in the nova IRC meeting this week for people to discuss specific exception requests. Michael_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
