LGTM
On Jun 22, 2017 13:12, "'Brian Grant' via Kubernetes developer/contributor
discussion" wrote:
> At the leadership summit a few weeks ago, I believe there was consensus
> that we should start an Architecture SIG. There were also discussions of
> Working Groups around extensibility and repo r
+1.
I think it makes sense to have a home for the architectural direction of
Kubernetes.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:55 AM, 'Brian Grant' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:36 AM, DL duglin wrote:
>
>> Overall, big +1
>>
>> > But the SIG would not
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:36 AM, DL duglin wrote:
> Overall, big +1
>
> > But the SIG would not get involved with issues specific to a particular
> component or functional area, which would be the purview of some other SIG,
> except where they deviate from project-wide principles/conventions.
>
>
Overall, big +1
> But the SIG would not get involved with issues specific to a particular
component or functional area, which would be the purview of some other SIG,
except where they deviate from project-wide principles/conventions.
I'd like some discussion around this as SIG-Arch is establish
+1
Can we emphasise in the mission statement that the SIG is concerned with
the architecture of the Kubernetes project and codebase(s)? Before I read
it I assumed it was about how to architect apps *on* Kubernetes. I'm sure
other folks might make that assumption too.
On Thursday, 22 June 2017
+1
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:12 PM, 'Brian Grant' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion wrote:
> At the leadership summit a few weeks ago, I believe there was consensus
> that we should start an Architecture SIG. There were also discussions of
> Working Groups around extensibility and
+1
Op donderdag 22 juni 2017 22:12:48 UTC+2 schreef Brian Grant:
>
> At the leadership summit a few weeks ago, I believe there was consensus
> that we should start an Architecture SIG. There were also discussions of
> Working Groups around extensibility and repo refactoring, but I'd like to
> f
+1.
在 2017年6月23日星期五 UTC+8上午4:12:48，Brian Grant写道：
>
> At the leadership summit a few weeks ago, I believe there was consensus
> that we should start an Architecture SIG. There were also discussions of
> Working Groups around extensibility and repo refactoring, but I'd like to
> fold that into S
+1 to this - I have wanted this to be a thing at many times while working
on service-catalog.
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:12:48 PM UTC-4, Brian Grant wrote:
>
> At the leadership summit a few weeks ago, I believe there was consensus
> that we should start an Architecture SIG. There were also
+1
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 21:12:48 UTC+1, Brian Grant wrote:
>
> At the leadership summit a few weeks ago, I believe there was consensus
> that we should start an Architecture SIG. There were also discussions of
> Working Groups around extensibility and repo refactoring, but I'd like to
> fo
+1.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, 'Eric Tune' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion wrote:
> +1.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andy Goldstein wrote:
>
>> +1 from me too
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Clayton Coleman
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - there have been several si
+1
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, 'Eric Tune' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion wrote:
> +1.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andy Goldstein wrote:
>
>> +1 from me too
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Clayton Coleman
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - there have been several sig
+1.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andy Goldstein wrote:
> +1 from me too
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Clayton Coleman
> wrote:
>
>> +1 - there have been several sig discussions recently about having a more
>> streamlined way to seek consensus on broad reaching technical changes, and
+1 from me too
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Clayton Coleman
wrote:
> +1 - there have been several sig discussions recently about having a more
> streamlined way to seek consensus on broad reaching technical changes, and
> this seems like a natural (possibly overdue) sig.
>
> On Jun 22, 2017,
+1 - there have been several sig discussions recently about having a more
streamlined way to seek consensus on broad reaching technical changes, and
this seems like a natural (possibly overdue) sig.
On Jun 22, 2017, at 3:13 PM, 'Brian Grant' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion wrote:
Big +1 from me. It's long-awaited and we definitely need a place to discuss
architecture questions and make architecture decisions.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:12 PM 'Brian Grant' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion wrote:
> At the leadership summit a few weeks ago, I believe there wa
16 matches
Mail list logo
