Open Stack

+1, I think it's a better medium for conversations than blueprints or wikis.

I'm also +1 to a tripleo-specs repo, but that's less me having a problem 
with using incubator and more my OCD.

On 04/15/2014 03:43 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 04/15/2014 11:44 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well
>> - it certainly addresses:
>>   - making design work visible
>>   - being able to tell who has had input
>>   - and providing clear feedback to the designers
>>
>> I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle..
>
> ++
>
>> I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a
>> repository separate to our production code - what do folk think?
>
> In the current nova-specs thread on the ML, Tim Bell says:
>
> "I think that there is also a need to verify the user story aspect. One
> of the great things with the ability to subscribe to nova-specs is that
> the community can give input early, when we can check on the need and
> the approach. I know from the CERN team how the requirements need to be
> reviewed early, not after the code has been written."
>
> Which is great. I'm mentioning it because he calls out the ability to
> subscribe to nova-specs.
>
> I think if you put them in incubator, then people who are wanting to
> fill a role like Tim - subscribing as an operator and validating user
> stories - might be a bit muddied by patches to other thigns. (although
> thanks for having a thought about less repos :) )
>
> So I'd just vote, for whatever my vote is worth, for a tripleo-specs repo.
>
> Monty
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>