On 18/02/17 03:24, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Thomas Herve wrote:
[...]
At any rate, it's a matter of trust, a subject that comes from time to
time, and it's fairly divisive. In this case though, I find it ironic
that I can approve whatever garbage I want on master, it can make its
way into a release, but if I want a bugfix backported into another
branch, someone else has to supervise me.
Originally the lock was there to make sure that people with stable/*
rights were aware of the stable policy (in particular which changes are
backportable depending on the support phase). Rules to apply in stable
reviews are *completely* different from the rules to apply on master
reviews - so being trusted for master doesn't magically make you aware
of review rules for stable.
Yes, this is reasonable. FWIW I'm 100% confident that all of the ex-PTLs
are familiar with the stable branch policy (I am the stable-branch
liaison for Heat).
That said, I thought that we now defaulted to trusting the local stable
liaison to ensure that the policy was well-known and directly add people
to the group... (with stable-maint being able to remove people if
needed, ask for forgiveness rather than permission, etc.)
This seems like an appropriate policy to me. I would be happy to see it
adopted if it hasn't been already.
I guess that's something we could discuss in the Stable team room
(Monday morning) at the PTG for those who will be around then.
I might stop by :)
cheers,
Zane.
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
