I want to clarify my previous reply +1 but the new fuel-core would be a small group of the cores who are fully involved in the whole Fuel project.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alexey Stepanov <astepa...@mirantis.com> wrote: > -1 > This is seriously dangerous idea: core-reviewer in fuel-qa does not mean > exact skills for +2/W on fuel-octane, for example. Sometimes, because of > limited time, reviewer will press +W without understanding patch detail. In > repo, which he knows, he can fix issue later by itself, but only of he > really knows what he doing. > > пн, 5 сент. 2016 г., 19:14 Maksim Malchuk <mmalc...@mirantis.com>: > >> -1 >> My vision - we should have something like super-core group with a smaller >> number of the current core guys. >> This is because a lot of current core guys were switched to the other >> projects and already out of the scope. >> Such guys still can be cores in their former projects and can help >> sometimes, but only several guys can drive the Fuel. >> >> P.S. we always can nominate new cores to the specific project >> individually if you don't like the super-core group idea. >> >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Andrew Maksimov <amaksi...@mirantis.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> This is a good proposal, I also think we should have single fuel-core >>> group for all repos. In real life core reviewers won't set +2 or merge to >>> repos with which they are not familiar with. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andrey Maximov >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> ______________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards, >> Maksim Malchuk, >> Senior DevOps Engineer, >> MOS: Product Engineering, >> Mirantis, Inc >> <vgor...@mirantis.com> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> ______________ >> 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 > > -- Best Regards, Maksim Malchuk, Senior DevOps Engineer, MOS: Product Engineering, Mirantis, Inc <vgor...@mirantis.com>
__________________________________________________________________________ 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