Open Stack

For reference, I proposed a review which does this for nova last
night: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/122109/

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Aaron Rosen <aaronorosen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree as well. I think moving them to an unimplemented folder makes sense
> and would be helpful in reviewing if one re-proposes a blueprint.
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/15/2014 10:01 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>> > Some of the specs had a significant amount of detail and thought put
>> > into them. It seems like a waste to bury them in a git tree history.
>> >
>> > By having them in a place where external parties (e.g. operators) can
>> > easily find them, they could get more visibility and feedback for any
>> > future revisions. Just being able to see that a feature was previously
>> > designed out and approved can prevent a future person from wasting a
>> > bunch of time typing up a new spec for the same feature. Hardly anyone
>> > is going to search deleted specs from two cycles ago if it requires
>> > checking out a commit.
>> >
>> > Why just restrict the whole repo to being documentation of what went
>> > in?  If that's all the specs are for, why don't we just wait to create
>> > them until after the code merges?
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with you that it makes sense to keep them in a directory
>> that makes it clear that they were not completed.
>>
>> There's a ton of useful info in them.  Even if they get re-proposed,
>> it's still useful to see the difference in the proposal as it evolved
>> between releases.
>>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Rackspace Australia