[Gluster-infra] [Gluster-devel] NetBSD tests not running to completion.

Vijay Bellur vbellur at redhat.com
Fri Jan 8 19:04:19 UTC 2016

On 01/08/2016 08:18 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
>>           I think we just need to come up with rules for considering a
>> platform to have voting ability before merging the patch.
> I totally agree, except for the "just" part.  ;)  IMO a platform is much
> like a feature in terms of requiring commitment/accountability,
> community agreement on cost/benefit, and so on.  You can see a lot of
> that in the feature-page template.
> https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs-specs/blob/master/in_progress/template.md
> That might provide a good starting point, even though some items won't
> apply to a platform and others are surely missing.  It's new territory,
> after all.  Also, I believe the bar for platforms should be higher than
> for features, because a new platform multiplies our test load (and
> associated burdens) instead of merely adding to it.  Also, new features
> rarely impact all developers the way that new platforms do.
> Nobody should be making assumptions or unilateral decisions about
> something as important as when it is or is not OK to block all merges
> throughout the project.  That needs to be the subject of an explicit and
> carefully considered community decision.  That, in turn, requires some
> clearly defined cost/benefit analysis and resource commitment.  If we
> don't get the process right this time, we'll end up having this same
> conversation yet again, and I'm sure nobody wants that.

Agree here.

Pranith - can you please help come up with a governance process for 
platforms in consultation with Jeff and Emmanuel? Once it is ready we 
can propose that in the broader community and formalize it.


More information about the Gluster-infra mailing list