Hi James, On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 07:03 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:02 -0800, James E. Blair wrote: > > Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com> writes: > > > 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. > > Yes, that's what Thierry initially suggested and I'm persuaded now > too :)
Could you go ahead and make this change? Thanks much, Mark. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
