On 2018-05-23 15:20:28 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: > On 05/23/2018 02:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: > > [...] > > > I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from > > > StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should > > > have been done (i.e. upstream first), and I don't see how a project would > > > prioritize that over other work. > > [...] > > > > I have yet to see anyone suggest it should be prioritized over other > > work. I expect the extracted and proposed changes/specs > > corresponding to the divergence would be viewed on their own merits > > just like any other change and ignored, reviewed, rejected, et > > cetera as appropriate. > > Even doing that is work - going through changes, finding nuggets, > proposing new specs.... I don't think we can expect a project to > even go there, it has to be driven by someone already involved in > StarlingX, IMHO.
I gather that's the proposal at hand. The StarlingX development team would do the work to write specs for these feature additions, propose them through the usual processes, then start extracting the relevant parts of their "technical debt" corresponding to any specs which get approved and propose patches to those services for review. If they don't, then I agree this will go nowhere. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
