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"
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
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
>>
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
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
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