From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio M. Di Nitto Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:59:24 +0200 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [Linux-ha-dev] new resource agents repository commit policy In-Reply-To: <20110329131504.GA3825@squib> References: <20110314170753.GB3650@squib> <20110318092048.GE23764@suse.de> <20110328152813.GA6989@rondo.homenet> <4D90AC3C.40805@redhat.com> <20110329131504.GA3825@squib> Message-ID: <4D91F3CC.2070705@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/29/2011 03:15 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 05:41:48PM +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: >> On 3/28/2011 5:28 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:20:48AM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: >>>> On 2011-03-14T19:49:29, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> >>>>> I suspect you want b) with maybe 6 people for redundancy. >>>>> The pull request workflow should be well suited to a project like this >>>>> and impose minimal overhead. >>>> >>>> I prefer b as well, since it adds another review step. (Should we use >>>> the github.com code review tools?) >>> >>> OK. It seems like nobody's that much interesting in this, so we >>> can just as well go with option b). >> >> WFM of course. > > Woman FIDE Master? :) > >>> Fabio, I'd like to get the commit access rights. Florian Haas and >>> Lars Ellenberg have also been frequently reviewing user >>> contributions, so they should get commit rights too. I understand >>> that Florian already has that. Lars is about to create a >>> github.com account and he'll send you later his account name. >> >> You will need to talk to Andrew for this. I am not the owner of the repo. > > I guess that Andrew's listening. Yes it appears that I have admin rights on the repo, so just fire up the requests with your github account and i'll try to add people. > >> For now I did merge bits from Florian and I can do it while Andrew will >> allow accounts to commit. >> >>> >>>> Oh, and we can use the ha-wg-technical mailing list for cross-project >>>> coordination ;-) >>> >>> Yes, but the list is very new and some people who may be affected >>> are perhaps not all subscribed. >> >> Let?s make sure that the message is sent again to the mailing lists, we >> can clearly still collect patches on the old lists for two/three months >> while we transition. > > I actually expected the ha-wg-technical list to be low volume > and for "project coordination" and similar, not for daily > business. As long as we don't start merging the agents into clusterlabs/, I would assume that patches we get on each mailing lists are targeted to the specific set. In the long run, we will have time to decide for a patch-list or something. I don't think we need to be super strict from day 0 and let's thing settle down on their own during a transition phase. fabio