[openstack-dev] [barbican] python-barbicanclient-master.tar.gz outdated on tarballs.openstack.org
Hi, on http://tarballs.openstack.org/python-barbicanclient/ , master tarball is not the latest git version. Something seems to be broken. Any hints how to solve that? TIA, Tom __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [barbican] python-barbicanclient-master.tar.gz outdated on tarballs.openstack.org
On 2015-08-29 18:44:55 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Bechtold wrote: on http://tarballs.openstack.org/python-barbicanclient/ , master tarball is not the latest git version. Something seems to be broken. Any hints how to solve that? What makes you say that? The master branch tip as seen at http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/python-barbicanclient/commit/?h=master is a5f7531a0f37542be70d0cfbd0fd7f86a38b0539 and the log from the corresponding run of the python-barbicanclient-branch-tarball job at http://logs.openstack.org/a5/a5f7531a0f37542be70d0cfbd0fd7f86a38b0539/post/python-barbicanclient-branch-tarball/ef9d3c0/console.html.gz shows checksums matching the tarball I just downloaded from http://tarballs.openstack.org/python-barbicanclient/python-barbicanclient-master.tar.gz so it seems correct to me at least. Can you elaborate? -- Jeremy Stanley __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Code review process in Fuel and related issues
On 27 Aug 2015, at 07:58, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Mike, I have several comments. SLA should be the driver of doing timely reviews, however we can’t allow to fast-track code into master suffering quality of review ... As for me the idea of SLA contradicts to qualitative reviews. We expect cores to be less loaded after this change, so you guys should have more time to spend on right reviews, and not minor stuff. We hope this will also help keeping SLAs. Another thing is I got a bit confused by the difference between Core Reviewer and Component Lead, aren't those the same persons? Shouldn't every Core Reviewer know the architecture, best practises and participate in design architecture sessions? Not really. You can have many core reviewers, but there should be one component lead. Currently, while Fuel is monolithic, we cannot implement it in technical way. But if we succeed splitting Fuel into smaller projects, component lead will be responsible for (most likely) one repo. Regards, -- Tomasz 'Zen' Napierala Product Engineering - Poland __ 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
