incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <>
Subject Re: Maintainer/committer model for CloudStack
Date Wed, 16 May 2012 06:39:05 GMT
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Alex Huang <> wrote:
>> Contributors - people who contribute in one way or another to the project
>> Committers - people who have commit access to the project's repo(s)
>> Maintainers - volunteers from the pool of committers who have stepped
>> forward to shepherd a single module. This is not a position of authority - but
>> rather one of responsibility - to ensure coding standards are met, that
>> accepted patches don't break things, etc.
> So going into that, this is one area where I have difference opinion on maintainer's
> In the write-up, it says "Review, and potentially acceptance, of code changes from the
community. The maintainer is responsible for testing that new contributions work and do not
break the application, and that the code changes are of high quality."
> I think the maintainer should be responsible for making sure the process from feature
design, code design, code review, to unit testing and integration testing have been followed
but I find that "testing that new contributions work" to be challenging for a maintainer.
 I think the committers need to prove as part of their patch that it doesn't break things.
 Maintainers can go back and say "Well, you haven't proved this or that" and can give suggestions
on how to prove it.
> What do others think?
> --Alex

Makes sense to me - but I think we likely need to figure out what the
barrier is to 'prove' - and naturally 'proving that nothing is broken'
is practically impossible. Perhaps it's a sliding scale - small
patches have to demonstrably fix the problem reported, large features
must pass some BVT or something similar.

Any others have comments?


View raw message