Open Stack

That's a fairly good point Michael, and if that can get correlated to the proposed incubation section for that project then I believe this would help alleviate a lot of frustration and help folks understand what to expect and what are the next steps etc. 
How do we get this formulated and agreed so we can have this approved and proceed?
/Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Still [mailto:mikal at stillhq.com] 
Sent: August-28-14 6:51 PM
To: Daniel P. Berrange; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [neutron] Specs for K release

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:51:32AM +0000, Alan Kavanagh wrote:
>> How to do we handle specs that have slipped through the cracks
>> and did not make it for Juno?
>
> Rebase the proposal so it is under the 'kilo' directory path
> instead of 'juno' and submit it for review again. Make sure
> to keep the ChangeId line intact so people see the history
> of any review comments in the earlier Juno proposal.

Yes, but...

I think we should talk about tweaking the structure of the juno
directory. Something like having proposed, approved, and implemented
directories. That would provide better signalling to operators about
what we actually did, what we thought we'd do, and what we didn't do.

I worry that gerrit is a terrible place to archive the things which
were proposed by not approved. If someone else wants to pick something
up later, its super hard for them to find.

Michael

-- 
Rackspace Australia

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev