+1.
And the review process should be more efficient!
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Stefano Maffulli
wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
> > That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a
> smartest
> > reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.
>
> An
I definitely agree that such cross-pollination across projects is ideal.
However, I think (and not to deviate from the general discussion on
making blueprint specs review more effective), Kevin's question was
specifically in the context of the GBP blueprint. It is not clear in
that case that a Nov
I agreed with Jay. Nova is one of the consumer of Neutron project, someone
from Nova project should participate reviewing related blueprint in neutron
project.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 07:54 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>
>> I'm curious, how would hav
On 08/06/2014 07:54 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
I'm curious, how would having Nova reviewers look at this have helped?
As I mentioned on a previous email, Nova is the pre-eminent consumer of
Neutron's API.
Best,
-jay
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Jay Pipes mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm curious, how would having Nova reviewers look at this have helped?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
>
>> On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi > m...@us.ibm.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, indeed.
>>> I do not want to be
On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi
mailto:m...@us.ibm.com>>
wrote:
Yes, indeed.
I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original "Group
Based Policy and the way forward" thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.
Aft
On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi
mailto:m...@us.ibm.com>>
wrote:
>Yes, indeed.
>I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original "Group
>Based Policy and the way forward" thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.
>After months and months of discussions, three p
fair to blame re
>
> From: Stefano Maffulli
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: 08/06/2014 04:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was
> Re
lt;
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: 08/06/2014 04:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was
> Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)
> --
>
>
>
> On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26
k-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: 08/06/2014 04:47 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re:
[Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)
On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> So I don'
Mohammad
From: Stefano Maffulli
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: 08/06/2014 04:47 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process
(was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way f
On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here.
Just want to be super clear: there is no 'blaming' here. This is a
request to regroup and look at why we are having this conversation about
GBP now, this late in cycle, and about such
+1 Eugene,
Still, there's a point in Stefano's thread:
There's a time for discussing merging strategies, models, and naming
conventions... And this time is called BP approval :)
Just saying.
Ivar.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Eugene Nikanorov
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:07
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli
wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
> > That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a
> smartest
> > reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.
>
> And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
>> That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a smartest
>> reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.
>
> And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints' and
15 matches
Mail list logo
