Re: +2/+1 approach and Re: ServiceUnavailableException

Flavio Fernandes <ffernand@...> wrote on 02/13/2015 06:43:10 AM:

> From: Flavio Fernandes <ffernand@...>
> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: neutron-dev@...
> Date: 02/13/2015 06:44 AM
> Subject: ServiceUnavailableException
> 

> Hi Ryan,

> 

> I just noticed that in some files you changed yesterday [1], the 

> error code 503 is not mentioned in the

> 

>     @StatusCodes({

>        ...

>       @ResponseCode(code = 503, condition = “CONDITION") })  <— missing

> 

> block. Is that a reason for concern? I’m not familiar with the 

> requirements for having all these codes

> spelled out in there. Sorry for not caching that sooner.

> 

> Best,

> 

> — flavio

> 

> [1]: https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/15216/

> 

> 

Edward Warnicke <hagbard@...> #10 I'm not hugely comfortable requiring two committers to review a patch as a matter of policy, because some things (like the .gitignore) are pretty harmless and unalloyed goods and some thing are actually time critical (like fixing build breakage). That said, I think for consequential things its probably a good idea to get more eyes if possible... but I think that should be at the discretion of the reviewer. Does that make sense? Ed toggle quoted message Show quoted text On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Ryan Moats <rmoats@...> wrote: There is a commit to address this now [1], which brings up the question of +2/+1 behavior: I'd like to propose that we have two committers look at each patch - the first +1s it and the second +2s it That way we've got at least half the folks reviewing each patch... Thoughts? Ryan [1] https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/15265 `Flavio Fernandes <ffernand@...> wrote on 02/13/2015 06:43:10 AM: > From: Flavio Fernandes <ffernand@...>` `> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS` `> Cc: neutron-dev@...` `> Date: 02/13/2015 06:44 AM` `> Subject: ServiceUnavailableException` > > Hi Ryan, > > I just noticed that in some files you changed yesterday [1], the > error code 503 is not mentioned in the > > @StatusCodes({ > ... > @ResponseCode(code = 503, condition = “CONDITION") }) <— missing > > block. Is that a reason for concern? I’m not familiar with the > requirements for having all these codes > spelled out in there. Sorry for not caching that sooner. > > Best, > > — flavio > > [1]: https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/15216/ > > _______________________________________________ neutron-dev mailing list neutron-dev@... https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/neutron-dev