Perhaps we should cover and assign each module in the meeting after the release?
Actually removing the code and tests in many cases would be a good assignment for people trying to get more commits and experience. On Feb 1, 2016 2:22 PM, "Cody Herriges" <c...@herriges.org> wrote: > Emilien Macchi wrote: > > Last week, we had our midcycle sprint. > > Our group did a great job and here is a summary of what we worked on: > > > > My attention at the office was stolen quite a few times by finishing up > work for our production cloud deployment but I worked on the > pupept-cinder Mitaka deprecations when I could. First round was done > which was the removal of old code previously deprecated and I have > started on a second pass which is new deprecations that are being > introduced in Mitaka by upstream cinder. > > This is the fist time I've sat down to actually just hunt and implement > deprecations and the number one thing I learned is that it is really > time consuming. We'll need several people working on this if we want > them complete for every module by release time. > > > -- > Cody > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
