Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

On 12/03/2015 06:13 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: Hi Dmitry, should we also configure Launchpad to have blueprints references there (for release/milestone targeting etc)? Or is it not needed? Not sure what you mean, we do have Launchpad configured for blueprints. We used and will continue

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

Oh, I just found it. Sorry for bothering. Cheers, On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:03 PM Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > On 12/03/2015 06:13 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > should we also configure Launchpad to have blueprints references there > > (for

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

FYI: the process is in effect now. Please submit specs to https://github.com/openstack/ironic-inspector-specs/ Approved specs will appear on http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-inspector-specs/ On 11/19/2015 02:19 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: Hi folks! I've been dodging subj for some

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

Hi Dmitry, should we also configure Launchpad to have blueprints references there (for release/milestone targeting etc)? Or is it not needed? Cheers, On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > FYI: the process is in effect now. > > Please submit specs to >

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

On 19 November 2015 at 08:39, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy < pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > +1 for specs in general, big features require a proper review and > discussion for which LP is not a good choice. > > +1 for not requiring a spec for small features, LP BP is enough for just >

[openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

Hi folks! I've been dodging subj for some time (mostly due to my laziness), but now it seems like the time has come. We're discussing 2 big features: autodiscovery and HA that I would like us to have a proper consensus on. I'd like to get your opinion on one of the options: 1. Do not have

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

On 11/19/2015 02:39 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: Hi all, +1 for specs in general, big features require a proper review and discussion for which LP is not a good choice. +1 for not requiring a spec for small features, LP BP is enough for just time/release tracking, but of course cores can

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

Hi all, +1 for specs in general, big features require a proper review and discussion for which LP is not a good choice. +1 for not requiring a spec for small features, LP BP is enough for just time/release tracking, but of course cores can request a proper spec to be proposed if feeling feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] specs process for ironic-inspector

Agree, we certainly need specs for discussing big feature, it would more effective than ml; not sure about for best place for it, probably we can start from ironic-specs, and then decide do we need separate repo or not. On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy <