Rossella Sblendido <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
thanks Ihar for the etherpad and for raising this point.
.
On 12/18/2015 06:18 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
Hi all,
just wanted to note that the etherpad page [1] with backport candidates
has a lot of work for those who have cycles for backporting relevant
pieces to Liberty (and Kilo for High+ bugs), so please take some on your
plate and propose backports, then clean up from the page. And please
don’t hesitate to check the page for more worthy patches in the future.
It can’t be a one man army if we want to run the initiative in long term.
I completely agree, it can't be one man army.
I was thinking that maybe we can be even more proactive.
How about adding as requirement for a bug fix to be merged to have the
backport to relevant branches? I think that could help
I don’t think it will work. First, not everyone should be required to care
about stable branches. It’s my belief that we should avoid formal
requirements that mechanically offload burden from stable team to those who
can’t possible care less about master. Open source works when there is
personal motivation for contribution. Put the bar too high, and you will
loose valuable contributions.
Second, it would be a waste of time for patch authors to sync all those
backports with master patch while review is ongoing.
Ihar
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
