Thanks for the input Duncan.
The removal of the debug logs is really a separate issue. I was just
hoping to reduce the number of patches that would touch a large number
of files. As we are thinking through this though, it really is a
separate change so it is best to do separate patches.
On a
That sounds like a sensible way forward, yes.
If the dependency is not need, then great, makes review and merge even easier.
Thanks
On 28 April 2014 17:03, Jay S. Bryant jsbry...@electronicjungle.net wrote:
Duncan,
Thanks for the response. Have some additional thoughts, in-line, below:
Two separate patches, or even two chains of separate patches, will
make reviewing and more importantly (hopefully temporary) backouts
easier. It will also reduce the number of merge conflicts, which are
still likely to be substantial.
There's no benefit at all to all of this being done in one
Duncan,
Thanks for the response. Have some additional thoughts, in-line, below:
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 12:15 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote:
Two separate patches, or even two chains of separate patches, will
make reviewing and more importantly (hopefully temporary) backouts
easier. It will also
All,
I am looking for feedback on how to complete implementation of i18n
support for Cinder. I need to open a new BluePrint for Juno as soon as
the cinder-specs process is available. In the mean time I would like to
start working on this and need feedback on the scope I should undertake
with
