On 02/12/2013 09:08 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
Agreed. This is an enhancement.
We should backport only patches which fix things which were broken.
ok, agreed. thanks for the inputs
Salvatore
On 12 February 2013 18:40, Dan Wendlandt<[email protected]> wrote:
My personal feeling is that while it may not break things if we backport to
folsom, at this point, we should be focusing our resources on making grizzly
solid and thus should only backport things that are truly broken in Folsom.
Under that criteria, I don't think this would be something we backport, but
I'll leave it to garyk and the masters of stable/folsom to decide if that's
the right criteria.
Dan
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Salvatore Orlando<[email protected]>
wrote:
Is this change bw compatible?
I think it's ok to backport to folsom only if users will not have to
change their configuration files once they update their packages.
Salvatore
On 12 February 2013 18:27, Gary Kotton<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Is this something that we want to backport:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21648/
Thanks
Gary
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Wendlandt
Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
twitter: danwendlandt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
