Talking with @bmbouter a little more about the PUP process and looking back at PUP-1, I think that the only way for PUP-3 to not be accepted is if a core developer were to cast/recast a -1 vote. I know there has been talk about alternatives but looking at the votes, there is a consensus around adopting PUP-3:
+1 - 5 votes +0 - 1 vote -0 - 2 votes -1 - 0 votes If anyone feels strongly about trying out an alternative or discussing alternatives further, please recast your vote or respond with your concerns. Otherwise, I think we'll proceed with approving/rejecting the PUP based on the votes on the deadline of June 12th. David On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:27 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > I have updated the proposal’s motivation section. Note that the actual > change/workflow hasn’t changed at all. > > > David > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:08 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Looks like @bmbouter made a comment to include this but I forgot to >> include it: >> >> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/3#discussion_r111498031 >> >> Will update the PUP. >> >> >> David >> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhriv...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think we need to redo the git workflow because we can't continue to >>>> resolve conflicts during merge forward as we did before. I see that as the >>>> central issue the PUP is resolving. >>> >>> >>> The PUP likely needs additional revision in that case; it does not >>> mention conflict resolution at all as a motivation. It would be valuable to >>> spell that out and discuss it. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Michael Hrivnak >>> >>> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE >>> >>> Red Hat >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
