Oh sorry... I thought it was about Ironic not TripleO (morning issues) Anyway, it could be something that we could adopt in Ironic as well :)
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes <lucasago...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Jay Dobies <jason.dob...@redhat.com> wrote: >> At the meetup today, the topic of our spec process came up. The general >> sentiment is that the process is still young and the hiccups are expected, >> but we do need to get better about making sure we're staying on top of them. >> >> As a first step, it was proposed to add 1 spec review a week to the existing >> 3 reviews per day requirement for cores. >> >> Additionally, we're going to start to capture and review the metrics on spec >> patches specifically during the weekly meeting. That should help bring to >> light how long reviews are sitting in the queue without being touched. >> >> What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week requirement >> for cores? > > You mean cores in Ironic and not the cores in the ironic-spec-core > group[1] right? > > Either way, 1 review per week seems to be very reasonable, the minimum > you can expect from a core, so +1 for the idea. > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/352,members _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev