Prasanna,
I believe the problem Edison is trying to address is high churn and rework incurred by long review cycles. I find it hard to review interfaces in isolation without implementations depicting actual usage. I would also like to see process ceremony kept to minimum to reduce drag on the over project flow. To that end, I think the best approach is to divide large enhancements into a batch of smaller commits that can be reviewed throughout the release cycle. I think this approach will reduce churn and rework while maintaing high impact reviews. Thanks, -John On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:31 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:41:56PM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:59:01PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: >>> For interface/API changes, we'd better have a code review, as more >>> storage vendors and more developers outside Citrix are >>> contributing code to CloudStack storage subsystem. The code change >>> should have less surprise for everybody who cares about storage >>> subsystem. >> >> I'm not following what you are saying Edison. What are we not doing in >> this regard right now? I'm also not getting the "Citrix" point of >> reference here. > > May be that everything interface related goes through > review/discussion when touching the storage subsys? I don't mind that > for other base components as well. But probably a good idea for > storage since it's still nascent and evolving. > > -- > Prasanna., > > ------------------------ > Powered by BigRock.com >
