+1 I agree that this is a good idea.
Regards, Mandeep ---- On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/28/2014 12:50 PM, Michael Still wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <[email protected]> >> 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. >>> >> >> Yes, but... >> >> 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. > > -jay > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
