On 08/28/2014 12:50 PM, Michael Still wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:51:32AM +0000, Alan Kavanagh wrote:
How to do we handle specs that have slipped through the cracks
and did not make it for Juno?
Rebase the proposal so it is under the 'kilo' directory path
instead of 'juno' and submit it for review again. Make sure
to keep the ChangeId line intact so people see the history
of any review comments in the earlier Juno proposal.
I think we should talk about tweaking the structure of the juno
directory. Something like having proposed, approved, and implemented
directories. That would provide better signalling to operators about
what we actually did, what we thought we'd do, and what we didn't do.
I think this would be really useful.
OpenStack-dev mailing list