> I'm not sure how using pull requests instead of Gerrit changesets would
> help "core reviewers being pulled on to other projects"?

The 2 +2 requirement works for larger projects with a lot of contributors.
When you have only 3 regular contributors and 1 of them gets pulled on to a
project and can no longer actively contribute, you have 2 developers who
can +2 each other but nothing can get merged without that 3rd dev finding
time to add another +2. This is what happened with Taskflow a few years
back. Eventually the other 2 gave up and moved on also.

> Is this just about preferring not having a non-human gatekeeper like
> Gerrit+Zuul and being able to just have a couple people merge whatever
> they want to the master HEAD without needing to talk about +2/+W rights?

We plan to still have a CI gatekeeper, probably Travis CI, to make sure PRs
past muster before being merged, so it's not like we're wanting to
circumvent good contribution practices by committing whatever to HEAD. But
the +2/+W rights thing was a huge PITA to deal with with so few
contributors, for sure.

If it's just about preferring the pull request workflow versus the
> Gerrit rebase workflow, just say so. Same for just preferring the Github
> UI versus Gerrit's UI (which I agree is awful).

I mean, yes, I personally prefer the Github UI and workflow, but that was
not a primary consideration. I got used to using gerrit well enough. It was
mostly the  There's also a sense that if a project is in the Openstack
umbrella, it's not useful outside Openstack, and Taskflow is designed to be
a general purpose library. The hope is that just making it a regular open
source project might attract more users and contributors. This may or may
not bear out, but as it is, there's no real benefit to staying an openstack
project on this front since nobody is actively working on it within the

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Reply via email to