On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:21:45AM -0500, Chris St. Pierre wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > To arbitrarily restrict the user is a bug. > > > > QFT. > > This is why I don't feel like a blueprint should be necessary -- this is a > fairly simple changes that fixes what's pretty undeniably a bug. I also > don't see much consensus on whether or not I need to go through the > interminable blueprint process to get this accepted. > > So since everyone seems to think that this is at least not a bad idea, and > since no one seems to know why it was originally changed, what stands > between me and a +2?
Submit a fix for it, I'll happily +2 it without a blueprint. We're going to be adopting a more lenient policy on what needs a blueprint in kilo and so I don't think this would need one in that proposal anyway. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev