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

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

Those annotations are for documentation generation... So, yes we should get them rationalized, but it's not quite as critical as getting the basic coverage in. Ryan Flavio Fernandes <ffernand@...>

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 =

i’d think the sooner the better so: 1) the project lead can push code 2) it will be a lot faster to verify the changes — gute

Ok, so project lead is decided (that was a surprise) As to Lithium, once we split, we aren't actually officially part until we say we are - so we need to say we want in and on what

Flavio, I think technically we have the right as a project that split before M3 to join Lithium, and as a practical matter I can't imagine we won't. I think the bigger question is, at which offset,

same here. +1 to Ryan. I’d think it is part of lithuim already, no? it is just a matter of whether lithuim will have it in the controller repo or in the newly created repo? — flavio

+1 to Ryan for project lead, he's got the greatest depth in the code. I think we are properly offset 1 personally... but very open to other thoughts there. Ed

All- Now that neutron northbound exists, we need to make two decisions fairly quickly: 1) who is the project lead. I'll save Ed the trouble of nominating me and say that I'm happy to take the role.