Hi Vladimir, I see one big problem here - people who have expert skills in one area (for example, in fuel-library puppet manifests and their logic) will have ability to set +2 and workflow +1 to reviews in other areas (for example, in fuel-astute) where they don't have good expertise. It can lead to errors increase and tests failures.
Also I don't feel any problems with core reviewers today (in fuel-library at least). If someone think that patches are merged too slow - let's just introduce new cores to corresponding teams, we have many great guys who will be glad to do this work. A burden of one's own choice is not felt, you know ) On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I'd like to suggest to use common fuel-core group for all Fuel projects > instead of having separate independent 'by-project' core groups like > 'fuel-astute-core' or 'fuel-agent-core'. > > Pros: > 1) It will be easier to access core members (timezone and holiday > tolerance) > 2) It will be easier to manage single core group (promote new members, > remove not active members) > > Cons: > 1) Less of flexibility. Permissions will be the same for all core > reviewers in all Fuel projects. > > What do you think? > > Vladimir Kozhukalov > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- with best regards, Stan.
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
