On 11/20/2013 07:04 AM, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> I know it was brought up on the list a number of times, but...
>
> If we're talking about storing commit ids for each module and writing
> some shell scripts for that, isn't it a chance to reconsider using git
> submodules?
No. They're too comp
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 22 November 2013 12:27, Elena Ezhova wrote:
> > But what if I want to update some module that consists of ten or even
> more
> > files (like rpc or db) and each of these files has quite a long change
> log?
> > In that case the commit me
On 22 November 2013 12:27, Elena Ezhova wrote:
> But what if I want to update some module that consists of ten or even more
> files (like rpc or db) and each of these files has quite a long change log?
> In that case the commit message may turn out to be really long even if only
> commit ids and n
But what if I want to update some module that consists of ten or even more
files (like rpc or db) and each of these files has quite a long change log?
In that case the commit message may turn out to be really long even if only
commit ids and names are included.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:37 PM, E
On 21/11/13 16:14 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
So I would really appreciate any comments or pieces of advice.
Is it sufficient to include just the short form of the original commit message,
along with the commit id in the oslo-incubator repository for reference?
I've done this and alse see
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Elena Ezhova wrote:
>
> 20.11.2013, 06:18, "John Griffith" :
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Mark McLoughlin
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> >> Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:12 PM, John Griffith
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Mark McLoughlin
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> >> Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc
> >> are unlikely to get review attention - doing
I don't recall the full discussion from before, but I know one of the
big problems with doing that is it actually makes it more difficult to
review these syncs. Instead of having 1000 lines of copied changes to
review, you have a one-line commit hash to look at and you then have to
try to figure
I know it was brought up on the list a number of times, but...
If we're talking about storing commit ids for each module and writing
some shell scripts for that, isn't it a chance to reconsider using git
submodules?
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Elena Ezhova wrote:
>
> 20.11.2013, 06:18,
20.11.2013, 06:18, "John Griffith" :
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>> Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc
>> are unlikely to get review attention - doing such a review is
>> e
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>> Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc
>> are unlikely to get review attention - doing such a review is
>> extremely difficult. I was -2ing them and as
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc
> are unlikely to get review attention - doing such a review is
> extremely difficult. I was -2ing them and asking for more info, but
> they keep popping up. I'm really not
Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc
are unlikely to get review attention - doing such a review is
extremely difficult. I was -2ing them and asking for more info, but
they keep popping up. I'm really not sure what the best way of
updating from OSLO is, but this isn't
This ML is not for review requests.
Please read
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-September/015264.html
best,
Joe
sent on the go
On Nov 14, 2013 4:26 AM, "Elena Ezhova" wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have made several patches that update modules in cinder/openstack/common
> fr
Hello!
I have made the same work in Glance — updating glance/openstack from Oslo.
I'd appreciate your reviews and comments very much.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/46088/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/46955/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/48195/
Also I've faced a strange problem
Hello all,
I have made several patches that update modules in cinder/openstack/common
from oslo which have not been reviewed for more than a month already. My
colleague has the same problem with her patches in Glance.
Probably it's not a top priority issue, but if oslo is not updated
periodically
16 matches
Mail list logo
