Russell Bryant wrote:
Perhaps going through this process for a single project first would be
helpful. I agree that some clarification is needed on the details of
the expected result.
At this point, I think we can break their request into two separate
questions.
The first one is high level,
Mark Washenberger wrote:
I don't have any issue defining what I think of as typical extension /
variation seams in the Glance code base. However, I'm still struggling
to understand what all this means for our projects and our ecosystem.
Basically, why do I care? What are the implications of a
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the
Technical Committee yesterday about which code
Dolph Mathews wrote:
I'm curious about the level of granularity that's envisioned in each
definition. Designated sections could be as broad as keystone.* or as
narrow as keystone.token.controllers.Auth.validate_token_head(). It
could be defined in terms of executables, package paths, or line
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
Perhaps going through this process for a single project first would be
helpful. I agree that some clarification is needed on the details of
the expected result.
At this point, I think we can
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote:
Dolph Mathews wrote:
I'm curious about the level of granularity that's envisioned in each
definition. Designated sections could be as broad as keystone.* or as
narrow as
On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:08 AM, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious about the level of granularity that's envisioned in each
definition. Designated sections could be as broad as keystone.* or as
narrow as keystone.token.controllers.Auth.validate_token_head(). It could be
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the
Technical Committee yesterday about which code sections in each
integrated project should be designated sections in the sense of [1]
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the
Technical Committee yesterday about which code
On 02/05/2014 11:22 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the
Technical Committee yesterday about which code sections in each
integrated project
On 02/05/2014 11:55 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
mailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 17:22 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the
Technical Committee yesterday about which code sections in each
Russell Bryant wrote:
Who gets final say if there's strong disagreement between a PTL and the
TC? Hopefully this won't matter, but it may be useful to go ahead and
clear this up front.
I suspect that would be as usual. PTL has final say over his project
matters. The TC can just wield the
On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't have a big issue with the way the Foundation currently enforces
you must use the code - anyone who signs a trademark agreement with
the Foundation agrees to include the entirety of Nova's code. That's
very vague,
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the
Technical Committee yesterday about which code sections
On 02/05/2014 12:54 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't have a big issue with the way the Foundation currently enforces
you must use the code - anyone who signs a trademark agreement with
the Foundation agrees to include the
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/05/2014 11:22 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Russell Bryant
rbry...@redhat.commailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/05/2014 11:22 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated project)
The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Rochelle.RochelleGrober
rochelle.gro...@huawei.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/05/2014 11:22 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
(This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one
integrated
19 matches
Mail list logo
