[Starlingx-discuss] Python Based VBox Installer

[Penney, Don]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Stanley [mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 12:00 PM
> To: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Python Based VBox Installer
> 
> On 2019-02-25 16:51:21 +0000 (+0000), Cordoba Malibran, Erich wrote:
> [...]
> > > > With that said, the review had been given two -2 votes from cores.
> > > > As I understand it, this is not a minor thing. From the openstack
> > > > guidelines, a -2 “is to indicate to the submitter that any further
> > > > time they spend on the change will almost certainly be wasted.”
> > > > Having two -2 votes on the update is very significant, thus the
> > > > decision to abandon the review. The openstack guidelines
> > > > describing
> > > > -1 and -2 votes seems pretty clear here:
> > > > https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/review-the-openstack
> > > > -
> > > > way.html#code-review-minus-2
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sounds like we need to come to a consensus as to when a -2 is
> > > appropriate. I personally don't think a -2 is appropriate for a
> > > first contribution, regardless of circumstances. Obviously we can't
> > > commit .pyc files and need licensing, but I definitely would prefer
> > > not to see -2s in this situation.
> > >
> > > I think this code is important and we need to get this back on track.
> > > This is a good "teachable moment" maybe for all sides? :)
> > >
> >
> > I agree, we need to get it back. I gave my -2 in the understanding
> > that every new functionality to the project needs a spec and an
> > approval process first. Now that this has been discussed and it's
> > clear we can have this kind of contributions, then I can remove the -2
> > (the review needs to be restored first) and continue with the review.
> 
> Sounds like the use of -2 in that case was more akin to:
> 
> https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/review-the-openstack-
> way.html#procedural-code-review-2
> 
> Basically, "put this contribution on hold, it can't merge until we have some
> other discussions." The distinction is easy to miss though, which is why
> explaining exactly why you voted -2 on a change is critical, as well as stating
> what you think the next steps are.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley

I read the "procedural -2", as well, but it didn't seem applicable here. This section seems to describe a "code freeze", which is not the case here.

The description of a "workflow -1" seems to align more with what it sounds like the intent of the -2s were.
https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/review-the-openstack-way.html#workflow-1

Cheers,
Don.