Doug Wiegley :
As an alternative, to be considered to cleaned up, note that octavia,
also a neutron stadium project, puts its specs in its own repo, runs
its own doc jobs, etc. Pros and cons, but just pointing out that its
out there.
Same for networking-bgpvpn: while the base discussion on
As an alternative, to be considered to cleaned up, note that octavia, also a
neutron stadium project, puts its specs in its own repo, runs its own doc jobs,
etc. Pros and cons, but just pointing out that its out there.
Thanks,
doug
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Kyle Mestery
'be considered to cleaned up’
i meant OR, not to. But I note that armax’s patch already clarified this, so
I’ll go back to my jetlag stupor. :-)
Thanks,
doug
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:07 PM, Doug Wiegley
> wrote:
>
> As an alternative, to be considered to cleaned
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 04:12, Gal Sagie wrote:
>
>> Do we also want to consider Project Kuryr part of this?
>>
>
> No, why would we?
>
[Gal] Because Kuryr is a special project which was created in
On 21 October 2015 at 04:12, Gal Sagie wrote:
> Do we also want to consider Project Kuryr part of this?
>
No, why would we?
> We already started sending Kuryr spec to the Neutron repository and I
> think it would make sense to manage it
> as part of Neutron spec process.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 04:12, Gal Sagie wrote:
>
>> Do we also want to consider Project Kuryr part of this?
>>
>
> No, why would we?
>
>
The reason to consider it is because Kuryr is a sub-project
On 21 October 2015 at 10:29, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 21 October 2015 at 09:53, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Armando M.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 10:29, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 October 2015 at 09:53, Kyle Mestery
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 09:53, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Armando M. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 October 2015 at 04:12, Gal Sagie
On 21 October 2015 at 09:53, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 21 October 2015 at 04:12, Gal Sagie wrote:
>>
>>> Do we also want to consider Project Kuryr part of this?
>>>
>>
>>
On 21 October 2015 at 09:52, Gal Sagie wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 21 October 2015 at 04:12, Gal Sagie wrote:
>>
>>> Do we also want to consider Project Kuryr part of this?
>>>
>>
>>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Gal Sagie wrote:
> Do we also want to consider Project Kuryr part of this?
> We already started sending Kuryr spec to the Neutron repository and I
> think it would make sense to manage it
> as part of Neutron spec process.
>
> Any opinions on
Do we also want to consider Project Kuryr part of this?
We already started sending Kuryr spec to the Neutron repository and I think
it would make sense to manage it
as part of Neutron spec process.
Any opinions on that?
Gal.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Armando M.
Hi folks,
During revision of the Neutron teams [1], we made clear that the
neutron-specs repo is to be targeted by specs for all the Neutron projects
(core + *-aas).
For this reason I made sure that the neutron-specs-core team +2 right was
extended to all the core teams.
Be mindful, use your +2
14 matches
Mail list logo