RE: oVirt site

-----Original Message----- From: project-planning-bounces(a)ovirt.org

Peer Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:17 AM To: project-planning(a)ovirt.org Cc: Carl Trieloff Subject: oVirt site Hi, I reviewed the documents on the site and it looks great. Here are some comments i have on the different documents: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Becoming a maintainer - A very good document. typos: - "(More on joining the board here .)" - add a link to the board doc - " to some projects that to others " - s/that/than - "or to be become a maintainer" - remove the 'be' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adding a sub-project - - I think the title should be "Adding a project" to be consistent with the rest of the docs on the site. typo: - "In addition the board my vote" - s/my/may - "theoVirt" - the oVirt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Voting - 1. If the R-T-C policy is in effect the document says that +1 means 'I have tested this patch myself, and found it good.'. I find this requirement to be too strict. I think that testing a patch is the responsibility of the patch submitter and reviewing a patch should not require actual testing. I suggest the following instead - For me reviewing a patch (+1 for a patch) means: - The patch make sense - The patch follows the project standards (e.g. code format) - The patch takes into account the different aspects/components of the project - The patch does not changes any core behavior or introduces new concepts that were not discussed in the mailing list beforehand. If the reviewer wants to test the patch or thinks additional testing is needed then he better do so but i would not go and set that as a requirement. 2. The document says that a three +1 votes are required for a pass. In the context of patch approval that requirement might be an overkill. I am looking at the engine project as an example there are a lot of patches a day, large part of them are not too complicated and one ack can be enough for validation. Requiring 3 acks can slow the development and i am not sure it is justified/needed. I suggest that by default a patch should require only one ack. If a patch introduces a major change or new concepts the patch submitter should mark the patch as such and ask for 3 acks. In addition if a patch reviewer thinks a patch has some level of complexity he can also ask the patch to have 3 acks before approval. This approach can also contribute for Developing and Maturing projects which do not have the needed resources to deal with 3 acks for each

typos: - "majour" - s/majour/major - The title "Vetos" is lost in the Votes on releases section. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Board - typo: - "with 10 or more resource" - s/resource/resources ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Livnat _______________________________________________ Project-planning mailing list Project-planning(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/project-planning