Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Stable branch policy for Mitaka

2016-02-22 Thread Dan Prince
On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 15:57 +, Steven Hardy wrote: > Hi all, > > We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a ML > discussion > to gain consensus and give folks visibility of the outcome would be a > good > idea. > > In summary, we adopted a more permissive "release branch"

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Stable branch policy for Mitaka

2016-02-15 Thread Arkady_Kanevsky
questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Stable branch policy for Mitaka On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:05:41PM +0100, James Slagle wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > > Hi all, > > We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Stable branch policy for Mitaka

2016-02-15 Thread John Trowbridge
On 02/15/2016 03:59 AM, Steven Hardy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:05:41PM +0100, James Slagle wrote: >>On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a ML >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Stable branch policy for Mitaka

2016-02-15 Thread Steven Hardy
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:05:41PM +0100, James Slagle wrote: >On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > > Hi all, > > We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a ML > discussion > to gain consensus and give folks

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Stable branch policy for Mitaka

2016-02-10 Thread James Slagle
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > Hi all, > > We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a ML discussion > to gain consensus and give folks visibility of the outcome would be a good > idea. > > In summary, we adopted a more permissive

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Stable branch policy for Mitaka

2016-02-10 Thread Derek Higgins
On 10/02/16 18:05, James Slagle wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Steven Hardy > wrote: Hi all, We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a ML discussion to gain consensus and give folks visibility of the