+1

I agree that this is a good idea.

Regards,
Mandeep
----




On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to