On 3 September 2014 21:57, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> Hey
>>
>> The libvirt version_cap debacle continues to come up in conversation and
>> one perception of the whole thing appears to be:
>>
>> A controversial patch was "ninjaed" by three Red
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> Hey
>
> The libvirt version_cap debacle continues to come up in conversation and
> one perception of the whole thing appears to be:
>
> A controversial patch was "ninjaed" by three Red Hat nova-cores and
> then the same individuals p
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 05:08:16PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> Hey
>
> The libvirt version_cap debacle continues to come up in conversation and
> one perception of the whole thing appears to be:
>
> A controversial patch was "ninjaed" by three Red Hat nova-cores and
> then the same in
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> In order to understand where this perception came from, I've gone back
> over the discussions spread across gerrit and the mailing list in order
> to piece together a precise timeline. I've appended that below.
>
Thanks for doing this Ma
Hi,
Very nice write up. I take my hat off for taking the time and doing a
postmortem. As a community we really need to work on how we communicate
with one another. At the end of the day we all have the common goal in the
success of the project.
At times I feel like things are done very quickly with
Hey
The libvirt version_cap debacle continues to come up in conversation and
one perception of the whole thing appears to be:
A controversial patch was "ninjaed" by three Red Hat nova-cores and
then the same individuals piled on with -2s when a revert was proposed
to allow further discuss
