(I changed the title to stop hijacking the Oslo thread.)
Hi,
Le 30/01/2016 22:25, Julien Danjou a écrit :
> (...) And it's easier/faster to fix with a larger team than a few.
> Which mean inclusion. Which mean openness.
While I think that Julien is a little bit rude and his email is stongly
opinionated, I have to agree with his global idea of openness.
IMHO some groups in OpenStack are too conservative which makes the
review process slower and slower every day and can easily discourage
motivated contributors. I understand that changing core parts of a
project require a long analysis, but it's sad that simple fixes, cleanup
changes, etc. can sometimes be stuck for many months before being
abandoned :-/
A side effect is that it became hard to reduce the technical debt in
some projects, or said differently: the technical debt became high in
some projects, and no solution was found to reduce it.
I prefer to trust developers. Everyone knows the impact of changes in
OpenStack. I'm sure that developers understand that they are supposed to
only modify some parts of a project and need more skills to remove the
tricky parts of the core.
I'm a strong supporter of "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission".
Hopefully, as dims wrote, each group is free to choose its own internal
policy for contributions ;-)
Victor
__________________________________________________________________________
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
