+1, we can have our own channel like ML. On 8 May 2012 15:08, Dave Pigott <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 - Very good idea. Can have a more focussed set of discussions this way. > > Dave > > On 7 May 2012, at 20:21, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: > > > Hi folks. > > > > I'd like to propose that we keep all the lava discussion in > > #linaro-lava if possible, this will allow participants, who are not > > working for linaro, to join and quickly identify people that share the > > interest in our common framework. The channel name is a compromise > > between unavailable #lava (already owned by unrelated project) and > > staying in #linaro (that sees a fair amount of unrelated traffic). I > > also considered #linaro-validation but I think we have agreed in the > > past that we want to transition away from the "validation" keyword to > > "lava". > > > > This is not formally done yet, I'd like to have a chanserv registry (I > > think all #linaro-* channels are automatically managed though) and > > public logs, much like we have on #linaro today. > > So, if you support this idea and find yourself talking or observing a > > discussion about LAVA in #linaro please gently suggest the > > participants to move to #linaro-lava > > > > Thanks > > Zygmunt Krynicki > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linaro-validation mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation > > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-validation mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation > -- Best wishes, Spring Zhang
_______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
