+1 from my side. I agree with this idea.
There is only one question from my side, which IMO we should describe in
documentation:
Do we need to upload release-notes for such small features?
My guess is - Yes. I'd like to know what other guys think about it.
On 20 January 2016 at 18:21, Rabi
On 2016-01-25 10:56, Sergey Kraynev wrote:
> +1 from my side. I agree with this idea.
>
> There is only one question from my side, which IMO we should describe
> in documentation:
>
> Do we need to upload release-notes for such small features?
> My guess is - Yes. I'd like to know what other
On 21 January 2016 at 05:57, Rico Lin wrote:
> +1
>
> And how everyone think about if we deprecate to use Blueprint in Launchpad
> and use bug system instead?
>
Rico, I am not sure, that it will be really useful.
It's obvious, that we may track progress by reno +
On 01/20/2016 10:21 AM, Rabi Mishra wrote:
Hi All,
As discussed in the team meeting, below is the proposed spec-lite process for
simple feature requests. This is already being used in Glance project.
Feedback/comments/concerns are welcome, before we update the contributor docs
with this:).
+1
And how everyone think about if we deprecate to use Blueprint in Launchpad
and use bug system instead?
If this make more sense, we can move all spec to bug system, lite or not.
I have saw Ironic and some other project discuss about doing it. Most of
the reason is they think Launchpad bug
Hi All,
As discussed in the team meeting, below is the proposed spec-lite process for
simple feature requests. This is already being used in Glance project.
Feedback/comments/concerns are welcome, before we update the contributor docs
with this:).
tl;dr - spec-lite is a simple feature
On 21/01/16 04:21, Rabi Mishra wrote:
Hi All,
As discussed in the team meeting, below is the proposed spec-lite process for
simple feature requests. This is already being used in Glance project.
Feedback/comments/concerns are welcome, before we update the contributor docs
with this:).