On 09/30/2015 12:11 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
On 13:29 Sep 28, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to
merge by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
policy. The main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other
things" an
On 13:29 Sep 28, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
> I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to
> merge by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
> policy. The main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other
> things" and this policy guarantees that for 75%
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:13:04PM -0600, John Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Ben Swartzlander
> wrote:
>
> > I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to merge
> > by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the policy. The
> > main motivati
On 09/28/2015 02:42 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote:
On 09/28/2015 10:29 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to
merge by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
policy. The main motivation was to free up reviewers to review
On 09/28/2015 10:29 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to
merge by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the
policy. The main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other
things" and this policy guarantees that for
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Duncan Thomas
wrote:
> I can definitely see your logic, but we've a history in cinder of vendors
> trying to cram drivers in at the last minute which we very much wanted to
> stop dead. I might suggest that the second milestone, rather than the first
> might be a
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Ben Swartzlander
wrote:
> I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to merge
> by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the policy. The
> main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other things" and this
> policy guar
I can definitely see your logic, but we've a history in cinder of vendors
trying to cram drivers in at the last minute which we very much wanted to
stop dead. I might suggest that the second milestone, rather than the first
might be a better one to dedicate to driver reviews...
An interesting thin
I've always thought it was a bit strange to require new drivers to merge
by milestone 1. I think I understand the motivations of the policy. The
main motivation was to free up reviewers to review "other things" and
this policy guarantees that for 75% of the release reviewers don't have
to revie
