On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
>
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>
> From the version_cap saga here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/110754
>
> I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
> like this.
>
> Here's my attempt at
On 08/14/2014 11:11 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:06:13AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> Hey
>>>
>>> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>>>
>>> From the version_cap saga here:
>>>
>>> https://review.ope
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:06:13AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hey
> >
> > (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
> >
> > From the version_cap saga here:
> >
> > https://review.openstack.org/110754
> >
> > I think we need a bette
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 15:56 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
>
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>
> From the version_cap saga here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/110754
>
> I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
> like this.
>
> Here's my attempt at
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>>
>> This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know
>> what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on
>> an issue?
>
> In an extreme case, th
> On Aug 12, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>
> This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know
> what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on
> an issue?
In an extreme case, the PTL has the authority to make the call.
In general I would
On 8/12/2014 4:03 PM, Michael Still wrote:
This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know
what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on
an issue?
Michael
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy,
Actually, thinking on this more -- the lack of consensus is on the
attempt to re-add the patch, so I guess we'd handle that just like we
do for a contentious patch now.
Michael
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Michael Still wrote:
> This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't
Should subsequent patches be reverted as well that depended on the change
in question?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
>
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>
> From the version_cap saga here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/110754
>
> I think we need a bette
This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know
what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on
an issue?
Michael
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
>
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>
> From the version_cap saga here
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
>
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>
> From the version_cap saga here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/110754
>
> I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
> like this.
>
> Here's my attempt at docum
Dan Smith wrote:
>> Looks reasonable to me.
>
> +1
+1
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:56:44PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
>
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>
> From the version_cap saga here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/110754
>
> I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
> like this.
>
> Here's my atte
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/12/2014 10:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
>> Hey
>>
>> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>>
>> From the version_cap saga here:
>>
>>https://review.openstack.org/110754
>>
>> I think we need a better understanding of how to approac
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
>
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>
> From the version_cap saga here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/110754
>
> I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
> like this.
>
> Here's my attempt at docume
On 08/12/2014 10:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at documenting what I think we're
> Looks reasonable to me.
+1
--Dan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
On 08/12/2014 10:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey
>
> (Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>
> From the version_cap saga here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/110754
>
> I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
> like this.
>
> Here's my attempt at documenting
Hey
(Terrible name for a policy, I know)
>From the version_cap saga here:
https://review.openstack.org/110754
I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations
like this.
Here's my attempt at documenting what I think we're expecting the
procedure to be:
https://etherpad
19 matches
Mail list logo
