charm teams

Sidnei da Silva sidnei.da.silva at
Wed Mar 13 18:46:40 UTC 2013

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jorge O. Castro <jorge at> wrote:

> 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?

>From the perspective of someone that has charms waiting for more than a
week, I think the current review process isn't working great.

The two problems that I see is that people don't seem to do reviews outside
of their assigned review days, and once a reviewer has picked up a review,
others seem to avoid stealing the review from him. I think both those
problems could be easily solved.


Make the most of Ubuntu with Ubuntu One
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Juju mailing list