charm teams

Jorge O. Castro jorge at
Wed Mar 13 18:15:35 UTC 2013

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Mark Mims <mark.mims at> wrote:
> One potential negative ramification of this is that since we are
> diluting the set of people responsible for maintaining charm quality, we
> might start diluting charm quality.  In practice, I think this will
> result in quite the opposite outcome.  Stuart Bishop shouldn't be
> waiting on me to review his postgresql-related code ;)

+1 on the idea as a whole, my only concern would be that by bypassing
the larger group of ~charmers there would be a net loss of overall
cross-pollination of charming best practice across the board.

Also I'm not sure if we prefer a longer queue with more review or a
shorter queue with less review? Part of me aches that the queue is now
piling up, but at the same time I am glad we're taking our time with
each one.

We can probably start with the openstack charms first and perhaps
postgres and see how it goes?

Jorge Castro
Canonical Ltd.

More information about the Juju mailing list