On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:02:27AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
>
> On 6/24/2015 9:09 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:51:38PM +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> >>On 06/24/2015 02:33 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
[. . .]
> >This is one of the _baffling_ aspects -- that a so-called "super core"
> >has to approve specs with *no* obvious valid reasons. As Jay Pipes
> >mentioned once, this indeed seems like a vestigial remnant from old
> >times.
> >
> >FWIW, I agree with others on this thread, Nova should get rid of this
> >specific senseless non-process. At least a couple of cycles ago.
>
> Specs were only added a couple of cycles ago... :) And they were added to
> fill a gap, which has already been pointed out in this thread. So if we
> remove them without a replacement for that gap, we regress.
Oops, I didn't mean to say that "Specs" as a concept should be gone.
Sorr for poor phrasing.
My question was answred by Joe Gordon with this review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184912/
--
/kashyap
__________________________________________________________________________
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
