I plan to start prioritising the specs that are in the review queue,
not just post approve.
We should fast track those that have already been approved, and
particularly when code is ready to go.
My original plan was to propose a git move from juno to kilo, so its
easy to see its just a re-approve
It seems like a no-brainer to me to prioritise people who have been patient
with us.
How about we tag these re-proposals with a commit message tag people can
search for when they review? Perhaps "Previously-approved: Juno"?
Michael
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>
> On M
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:32:57 -0700
> Joe Gordon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Gary Kotton
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Is the process documented anywhere? That is, if say for example I
> > > had a spec approved in J an
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:32:57 -0700
Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Gary Kotton
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Is the process documented anywhere? That is, if say for example I
> > had a spec approved in J and its code did not land, how do we go
> > about kicking the tires for K on
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
> Hi,
> Is the process documented anywhere? That is, if say for example I had a
> spec approved in J and its code did not land, how do we go about kicking
> the tires for K on that spec.
>
Specs will need be re-submitted once we open up the spe
Hi,
Is the process documented anywhere? That is, if say for example I had a
spec approved in J and its code did not land, how do we go about kicking
the tires for K on that spec.
Thanks
Gary
On 9/29/14, 1:07 PM, "John Garbutt" wrote:
>On 27 September 2014 00:31, Joe Gordon wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep
On 27 September 2014 00:31, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>> On 25 September 2014 14:10, Daniel P. Berrange
>> wrote:
>> >> The proposal is to keep kilo-1, kilo-2 much the same as juno. Except,
>> >> we work harder on getting people to buy into the prio
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 25 September 2014 14:10, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
> >> The proposal is to keep kilo-1, kilo-2 much the same as juno. Except,
> >> we work harder on getting people to buy into the priorities that are
> >> set, and actively provoke more
On 25 September 2014 14:10, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> The proposal is to keep kilo-1, kilo-2 much the same as juno. Except,
>> we work harder on getting people to buy into the priorities that are
>> set, and actively provoke more debate on their "correctness", and we
>> reduce the bar for what
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 01:52:48PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 25 September 2014 11:44, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > To use the runway system, we need to have a frequently updated list
> > of blueprints which are a priority to review / merge. Once we have
> > such a list, IMHO, adding the fix
On 25 September 2014 11:44, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> To use the runway system, we need to have a frequently updated list
> of blueprints which are a priority to review / merge. Once we have
> such a list, IMHO, adding the fixed runway slots around that does
> not do anything positive for me as
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:27:09AM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A big thank you to jogo who has done a great job writing up plans for
> kilo blueprints and specs:
>
> 1) Allow more code that doesn't need a blueprint and spec:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/116699/3
>
> Specs are a he
12 matches
Mail list logo