On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at documenting
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:06:13AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at documenting
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at documenting what I think we're expecting the
procedure to be:
On 08/12/2014 10:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at documenting what I
Looks reasonable to me.
+1
--Dan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
On 08/12/2014 10:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at documenting what I think we're
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/2014 10:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:56:44PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at
Dan Smith wrote:
Looks reasonable to me.
+1
+1
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at
This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know
what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on
an issue?
Michael
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the
Should subsequent patches be reverted as well that depended on the change
in question?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we
Actually, thinking on this more -- the lack of consensus is on the
attempt to re-add the patch, so I guess we'd handle that just like we
do for a contentious patch now.
Michael
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Michael Still mi...@stillhq.com wrote:
This looks reasonable to me, with a slight
On 8/12/2014 4:03 PM, Michael Still wrote:
This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know
what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on
an issue?
Michael
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey
(Terrible
On Aug 12, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Michael Still mi...@stillhq.com wrote:
This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know
what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on
an issue?
In an extreme case, the PTL has the authority to make the call.
In
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On Aug 12, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Michael Still mi...@stillhq.com wrote:
This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know
what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on
an issue?
18 matches
Mail list logo