> Why do cores need approved specs for example - and indeed for many of us > - it's just a dance we do. I refuse to believe that a core can be > trusted to approve patches but not to write any code other than a bugfix > without a written document explaining themselves, and then have a yet > more exclusive group of super cores approve that. It makes no sense. > Document it - sure. Discuss on ML/patches - by all means, but this is > just senseless.
I completely disagree with this (and find it offensive). Cores are not gods. They review things and try to do their best to keep quality high. However, that does not mean that they can single-handedly design and implement a large complex feature on their own without feedback. It's the same reason that cores need other cores to review their code. As a core, I rarely get patches in without iterating at least once due to feedback, and I certainly don't land blueprints without scrutiny from others. To me, cores having their code and specs reviewed is not a "dance we do." Is that your main complaint? That you, a core, have to have your specs reviewed? > Next - why do priority features need an approved spec? We all know we > want to do it, just design it up on an etherpad/wiki/trello/whatever if > needed, write code and discuss there. Because review of the design is important? --Dan __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
