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
e
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Jay Dobies 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 st
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
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Jay Dobies wrote:
>> At the meetup today, the topic of our
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Jay Dobies wrote:
> What are everyone's feelings on adding a 1 spec review per week requirement
> for cores?
Averaged over the standard 90d period I presume?
+1 here.
Alexis
--
Nova Engineer, HP Cloud. AKA lealexis, lxsli.
___
For everyone's reference, the tripleo-specs stats can be found here:
http://www.nemebean.com/reviewstats/tripleo-specs-30.txt
Note that looking at the stats, over 30 days 1 review per week is only
4, which most of our cores are already doing anyway. I'm not sure
codifying a requirement to do at l
k-dev] [TripleO] Spec Minimum Review Proposal
>
> For everyone's reference, the tripleo-specs stats can be found here:
> http://www.nemebean.com/reviewstats/tripleo-specs-30.txt
>
> Note that looking at the stats, over 30 days 1 review per week is only 4,
> which
> m
