Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/01/16 23:42, Sean Dague wrote: > > This conversation has gone on long enough I've completely lost the > problem we're trying to solve and the constraints around it. Thank you :) > > I'd like to reset the conversation a little. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 11/01/16 20:08, Sean Dague wrote: On 01/10/2016 11:31 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: Wow. That'll make the release notes process painful this round ... o.O Hmmm. In my mind it will make it a lot easier. In the past we end up getting to the release and sit around and go "hmmm, what did we change

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 01/11/2016 07:55 AM, Tom Fifield wrote: > On 11/01/16 20:08, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 01/10/2016 11:31 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: >> >>> Wow. That'll make the release notes process painful this round ... o.O >> >> Hmmm. In my mind it will make it a lot easier. In the past we end up >> getting to

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 01/10/2016 11:31 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: > Wow. That'll make the release notes process painful this round ... o.O Hmmm. In my mind it will make it a lot easier. In the past we end up getting to the release and sit around and go "hmmm, what did we change in the last 6 months that people care

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

Tom Fifield <t...@openstack.org> wrote on 01/11/2016 01:55:21 PM: > From: Tom Fifield <t...@openstack.org> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: 01/11/2016 01:55 PM > Subj

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

Excerpts from Lana Brindley's message of 2016-01-11 14:31:17 +1000: > On 09/01/16 14:07, Tom Fifield wrote: > > On 08/01/16 21:15, Sean Dague wrote: > >> On 01/07/2016 06:21 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: > >>> > On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/01/16 14:07, Tom Fifield wrote: > On 08/01/16 21:15, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 01/07/2016 06:21 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: >>> On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 08/01/16 21:15, Sean Dague wrote: On 01/07/2016 06:21 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote: [...] I think auto openning against a

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 01/07/2016 06:21 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: > >> On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >> >> On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >>> On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote: >>> [...] I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling it

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

> On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote: >> [...] >>> I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling it to >>> manuals manually (with details added by

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote: [...] > I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling it to > manuals manually (with details added by humans) would be fine. > > It's not clear to me why a new job was required for that. The new check job was simply a requirement

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 01/05/2016 11:07 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: > >> On 6 Jan 2016, at 1:19 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> >> On 2016-01-06 11:43:34 +1100 (+1100), Lana Brindley wrote: >> [...] >>> I’m starting to think that DocImpact needs to simply be retired then >> >> Alternatively, let the

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote: > [...] >> I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling it to >> manuals manually (with details added by humans) would be fine. >> >> It's not clear to me why a new job was required

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 01/04/2016 08:01 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: > I’m late to this party because holidays (Thanks Anne for bringing it to > my attention). > > First of all, sorry this came as a surprise. I tried hard to make sure > everyone who needed to know knew, but that’s naturally a difficult thing > to do. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 1:19 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2016-01-06 11:43:34 +1100 (+1100), Lana Brindley wrote: > [...] >> I’m starting to think that DocImpact needs to simply be retired then > > Alternatively, let the remaining projects which currently auto-open > bugs

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:35 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 01/04/2016 08:01 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: >> I’m late to this party because holidays (Thanks Anne for bringing it to >> my attention). >> >> First of all, sorry this came as a surprise. I tried hard to make sure >> everyone

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 2016-01-06 11:43:34 +1100 (+1100), Lana Brindley wrote: [...] > I’m starting to think that DocImpact needs to simply be retired then Alternatively, let the remaining projects which currently auto-open bugs for openstack-manuals switch to opening bugs against themselves and allow their bug

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

I’m late to this party because holidays (Thanks Anne for bringing it to my attention). First of all, sorry this came as a surprise. I tried hard to make sure everyone who needed to know knew, but that’s naturally a difficult thing to do. To the implementation details: I really am struggling to

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

Excerpts from Andreas Jaeger's message of 2015-12-18 20:31:04 +0100: > On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > >> On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > >>> Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was > >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

Hey all, So I just caught up on this thread and the corresponding scrollback in IRC. First of all, sorry if this came as a surprise to anybody. As Andreas pointed out this was highlighted in a number of docs email to this list, but I understand why they might have been overlooked. The resource

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >> Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was >> theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be >> part of this spec - >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was > theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be > part of this spec - > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote: Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be part of this spec - http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/docs-specs/specs/mitaka/review-docimpact.html Lana

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote: Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be part of this spec -

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

Le 18/12/2015 20:31, Andreas Jaeger a écrit : On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote: Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was theoertically processing commit messages for

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno

On 12/18/2015 02:31 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: >>> On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote: Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was theoertically processing commit