On 06/02/2018 12:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-06-01 15:19:46 -0400:
On 01/06/18 12:18, Doug Hellmann wrote:
[snip]
Is that rule a sign of a healthy team dynamic, that we would want
to spread to the whole community?
Yeah, this part I am pretty unsure about too. For some projects it
probably is. For others it may just be an unnecessary obstacle, although
I don't think it'd actually be *un*healthy for any project, assuming a
big enough and diverse enough team (which should be a goal for the whole
community).
It feels like we would be saying that we don't trust 2 core reviewers
from the same company to put the project's goals or priorities over
their employer's. And that doesn't feel like an assumption I would
want us to encourage through a tag meant to show the health of the
project.
I have to agree. In general, I have tried to at least give the opportunity
for other cores from other companies to review patches before approving,
but there have been times where I have approved patches in Cinder where
the only other +2 was someone from the same company.
I don't see anything wrong with this in most cases. As an exceptional
example, I'm actually happy to see two +2's from Red Hat cores on
Ceph related patches.
I think it's a good thing to encourage a mix, but I have never considered
it a hard and fast rule.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it? Or it is more of a problem than
I have experienced?
Doug
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
