> Excerpts from Dan Prince's message of 2015-04-13 14:07:28 -0700:
> > On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 21:06 +, Gregory Haynes wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Id like to propse a standard for consistently documenting our
> > > diskimage-builder elements. I have pushed a review which transforms
> > > the
Excerpts from Dan Prince's message of 2015-04-13 14:07:28 -0700:
> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 21:06 +, Gregory Haynes wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Id like to propse a standard for consistently documenting our
> > diskimage-builder elements. I have pushed a review which transforms the
> > apt-sources e
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 21:06 +, Gregory Haynes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Id like to propse a standard for consistently documenting our
> diskimage-builder elements. I have pushed a review which transforms the
> apt-sources element to this format[1][2]. Essentially, id like to move
> in the direction
Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-04-08 23:11:29 +:
>
> I discussed a format for something similar here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/162267/
>
> Perhaps we could merge the effort.
>
> The design and implementation in that might take some time, but if we
> can document the
Excerpts from Gregory Haynes's message of 2015-04-07 14:06:52 -0700:
> Hello,
>
> Id like to propse a standard for consistently documenting our
> diskimage-builder elements. I have pushed a review which transforms the
> apt-sources element to this format[1][2]. Essentially, id like to move
> in th
> Hello,
>
> Id like to propse a standard for consistently documenting our diskimage-
> builder elements. I have pushed a review which transforms the apt-sources
> element to this format[1][2]. Essentially, id like to move in the direction of
> making all our element README.rst's contain a sub sec
+2 from me. I'm still in favor of killing off most/all input env vars
and coming up with a less error-prone way to handle configuration, but
in the meantime this is a big step toward sanity for users.
On 04/07/2015 04:06 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Id like to propse a standard for con
Hello,
Id like to propse a standard for consistently documenting our
diskimage-builder elements. I have pushed a review which transforms the
apt-sources element to this format[1][2]. Essentially, id like to move
in the direction of making all our element README.rst's contain a sub
section called E
