On 20 July 2015 at 15:33, Ian Cordasco <ian.corda...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> > Yes, Matt should be doing more reviews. The difference is that (as I > understand it) we want to include Matt as a documentation core more than > as a core reviewer for playbooks. Matt's reviews have all pertained to > documentation. Other projects (e.g., Neutron and maybe Glance) are trying > out a trust system where cores are accepted for subsystem expertise. Those > cores are expected to only +2 and/or approve changes for their subsystem. > I don't think anyone can question Matt's expertise in documentation, or > Matt's knowledge of the architecture of the project. > > Tl;dr What if we trust Matt to only approve documentation related changes? > At this point we have very few documentation changes. I would prefer to see Matt challenging us to do better/more in that regard. He doesn't need to be a core to do that - he just needs to review the code more and share his thoughts on where documentation should be changed or added as part of the review so that docs changes form part of review patch sets.
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
