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.

|: 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

Reply via email to