Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
1,232 views
Skip to first unread message
Tim Hockin
Dec 1, 2022, 4:24:17 PM12/1/22
to steering
cool!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim Hockin <tho...@google.com>
To: Vinay Kulkarni <vsk...@gmail.com>
Cc: dev <d...@kubernetes.io>
Bcc:
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 13:23:02 -0800
Subject: Re: A new protocol for thockin PR reviews
Vinay,
Your PR was on my mind as I wrote this, but it is *not* the only or
even the worst example :) As you experienced, it takes an incredible
amount of tenacity on your part to make such changes happen. I want
to stop being part of the problem.
> As someone who is guilty of sticking Tim, Derek, and others with a multi-SIG, multi-component XL PR (102884) and disappointing them with 1.26 release miss, I've been wondering what I could have done better to ease the pain for reviewers and for retro disucssion. I want to add some color/specifics that I hope is useful.
You raised some great points, which I agree with. Aside from those -
imagine if we had assembled a fully-empowered review team up front,
and had bi-weekly or even monthly Zoom calls to get that team together
and talk through the current state and review incremental development
work. How much better would that have been? When we came to the end,
time to merge to k/k master - it would have hurt a LOT less, I think.
Tim
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer...@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 1:23 PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: <tho...@google.com>
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer...@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 1:23 PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: <tho...@google.com>
| |||
|
The response was: The group d...@kubernetes.io has exceeded its quota for total number of external recipients. |
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim Hockin <tho...@google.com>
To: Vinay Kulkarni <vsk...@gmail.com>
Cc: dev <d...@kubernetes.io>
Bcc:
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 13:23:02 -0800
Subject: Re: A new protocol for thockin PR reviews
Vinay,
Your PR was on my mind as I wrote this, but it is *not* the only or
even the worst example :) As you experienced, it takes an incredible
amount of tenacity on your part to make such changes happen. I want
to stop being part of the problem.
> As someone who is guilty of sticking Tim, Derek, and others with a multi-SIG, multi-component XL PR (102884) and disappointing them with 1.26 release miss, I've been wondering what I could have done better to ease the pain for reviewers and for retro disucssion. I want to add some color/specifics that I hope is useful.
You raised some great points, which I agree with. Aside from those -
imagine if we had assembled a fully-empowered review team up front,
and had bi-weekly or even monthly Zoom calls to get that team together
and talk through the current state and review incremental development
work. How much better would that have been? When we came to the end,
time to merge to k/k master - it would have hurt a LOT less, I think.
Tim
Bob Killen
Dec 1, 2022, 4:42:32 PM12/1/22
to Tim Hockin, steering
ugh looks like we hit one of the limits -_-
We moved to a managed list because its quota limits were much higher than the public google groups.
Not sure if this is something we can change =/ Will have to look into it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "steering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steering+u...@kubernetes.io.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/steering/CAO_RewZR5Era9WQKG2NhxXaOarmVWymLr8-5%3DyWCn5R12sMQog%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages