Open Stack

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Calum Loudon" <Calum.Loudon at metaswitch.com>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>,
>> "openstack-operators" <openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:09:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Telco Working Group meeting for Wednesday April    6th CANCELLED
>> 
>> Thanks Steve
>> 
>> I agree with moving to the PWG.
>> 
>> On that topic, do you know what's happened to some of the user stories we
>> proposed, specifically https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290060/ and
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290347/? Neither shows up in
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/openstack-user-stories
> 
> This query includes status:open, and those two reviews were merged already so they don't show up.
> 
>> but there is a https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290991/ which seems to be a
>> copy of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290060/ with the template help text
>> added back in and no mention of the original?
> 
> From Shamail's comment in 290991:
> 
>    This change should be used to discuss and refine the concept. Can the user story owner please make a minor change to show ownership?
> 
> Basically they opened new reviews with a minor change to trigger further discussion. I'm not in love with this approach versus just discussing it on the original move request but it is the way it is being done for now. W.r.t. 290060 I believe you probably meant to include another link but I imagine the situation is the same.
Yeah, unfortunately, this approach was needed when we changed the workflow.  A minor change would be recommended for now.  

The template recently changed and you could update the story to the new template (if it isn't already updated) and that would suffice.
> 
> -Steve