Ping! @Nikolay - Can you take a look at the etherpad discussion and provide comments. I am going to start working on option (I) as that is the one which seems to make most sense. Thoughts?
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Renat Akhmerov <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks Manas! > > This is one of the important things we need to get done within the next > couple of weeks. Since it's going to affect engine I think we need to wait > for a couple of days with the implementation till we merge the changes that > are being worked on and that also affect engine significantly. > > Team, please research carefully this etherpad and leave your comments. > It's a pretty tricky thing and we need to figure out the best strategy how > to approach this kind of things. We're going to have more problems similar > to this one. > > Renat Akhmerov > @ Mirantis Inc. > > > > On 25 Feb 2014, at 10:07, manas kelshikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I have put down my thoughts about the standard repeat action blueprint. > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mistral/+spec/mistral-std-repeat-action > > I have added link to an etherpad document which explore a few alternatives > of the approach. I have explored details of how the std:repeat action > should behave as defined in the blueprint. Further there are some thoughts > on how it could be designed to remove ambiguity in the chaining. > > Please take a look. > > Thanks, > Manas > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
