-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 29/05/14 17:33, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Nachi Ueno na...@ntti3.com
wrote:
(2) Avoid duplication of works I have several experience of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 28/05/14 23:03, Nachi Ueno wrote:
Hi folks
OK, so it looks like this is consensus in the community,
Link bug or bp for most of commit Exception for not linking bug:
(1) Infra sync (2) minor fix. (typo, small code refactor, fix doc
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Nachi Ueno na...@ntti3.com wrote:
(2) Avoid duplication of works
I have several experience of this. Anyway, we should encourage people
to check listed bug before
writing patches.
I like the idea
2014-05-29 8:33 GMT-07:00 Yuriy Taraday yorik@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Nachi Ueno na...@ntti3.com wrote:
(2) Avoid duplication of works
I have several experience of this. Anyway,
Hi folks
OK, so it looks like this is consensus in the community,
Link bug or bp for most of commit
Exception for not linking bug:
(1) Infra sync
(2) minor fix. (typo, small code refactor, fix doc string etc)
Ihar, Assaf
Sorry for taking time for this discussion, I'll remove my comment for
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Nachi Ueno na...@ntti3.com wrote:
Hi Ben, Joe
Thank you for your reply
(2) Avoid duplication of works
I have several experience of this. Anyway, we should encourage people
to check listed bug before
writing patches.
That's a very good point, but I don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi all,
let me give you some examples of patches that I think do not *require*
any bug or blueprint (though some of them still have an associated bug):
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90781/ (minor pythonic refactoring)
- Original Message -
Hi folks
I believed we should link bug or bp for any commit except automated
commit by infra.
I think that stuff like refactors should be exempt, if for the simple
truth that often there's no bug involved.
However, I found also there is no written policy for
On 05/23/2014 12:23 PM, Nachi Ueno wrote:
Hi folks
I believed we should link bug or bp for any commit except automated
commit by infra.
However, I found also there is no written policy for this.
so may be, I'm wrong for here.
The reason, we need bug or bp linked , is
(1) Triage for
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Nachi Ueno na...@ntti3.com wrote:
Hi folks
I believed we should link bug or bp for any commit except automated
commit by infra.
However, I found also there is no written policy for this.
so may be, I'm wrong for here.
The reason, we need bug or bp linked ,
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Nachi Ueno na...@ntti3.com wrote:
Hi folks
I believed we should link bug or bp for any commit except automated
commit by infra.
However, I found also there is no written policy for
Hi Ben, Joe
Thank you for your reply
(2) Avoid duplication of works
I have several experience of this. Anyway, we should encourage people
to check listed bug before
writing patches.
(3) Release management
- TTX is doing this after each release. so we can know how many bugs we fixed.
(or we can
On 05/23/2014 03:02 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Nachi Ueno na...@ntti3.com
mailto:na...@ntti3.com wrote:
Hi folks
I believed we should link bug or bp for any commit except automated
commit by infra.
However, I found also there is no written
13 matches
Mail list logo
