-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/01/16 23:42, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> This conversation has gone on long enough I've completely lost the
> problem we're trying to solve and the constraints around it.
Thank you :)
>
> I'd like to reset the conversation a little.
>
> Goal:
Excerpts from Lana Brindley's message of 2016-01-11 14:31:17 +1000:
> On 09/01/16 14:07, Tom Fifield wrote:
> > On 08/01/16 21:15, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 01/07/2016 06:21 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
> >>>
> On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jer
On 01/11/2016 07:55 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
> On 11/01/16 20:08, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 01/10/2016 11:31 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
>>
>>> Wow. That'll make the release notes process painful this round ... o.O
>>
>> Hmmm. In my mind it will make it a lot easier. In the past we end up
>> getting to t
Tom Fifield wrote on 01/11/2016 01:55:21 PM:
> From: Tom Fifield
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Date: 01/11/2016 01:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno
>
> On 11/01/16 20:08, Sean Dague wr
On 11/01/16 20:08, Sean Dague wrote:
On 01/10/2016 11:31 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
Wow. That'll make the release notes process painful this round ... o.O
Hmmm. In my mind it will make it a lot easier. In the past we end up
getting to the release and sit around and go "hmmm, what did we change
On 01/10/2016 11:31 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
> Wow. That'll make the release notes process painful this round ... o.O
Hmmm. In my mind it will make it a lot easier. In the past we end up
getting to the release and sit around and go "hmmm, what did we change
in the last 6 months that people care a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/01/16 14:07, Tom Fifield wrote:
> On 08/01/16 21:15, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 01/07/2016 06:21 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
>>>
On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-
On 08/01/16 21:15, Sean Dague wrote:
On 01/07/2016 06:21 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling
On 01/07/2016 06:21 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
>
>> On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>
>> On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote:
>>> [...]
I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling it to
manuals m
> On 7 Jan 2016, at 2:09 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling it to
>>> manuals manually (with details added by humans) would be fine.
On 01/06/2016 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
>> I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling it to
>> manuals manually (with details added by humans) would be fine.
>>
>> It's not clear to me why a new job was required for
On 2016-01-06 07:52:48 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> I think auto openning against a project, and shuffling it to
> manuals manually (with details added by humans) would be fine.
>
> It's not clear to me why a new job was required for that.
The new check job was simply a requirement of
On 01/05/2016 11:07 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
>
>> On 6 Jan 2016, at 1:19 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-01-06 11:43:34 +1100 (+1100), Lana Brindley wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I’m starting to think that DocImpact needs to simply be retired then
>>
>> Alternatively, let the remaining projects whi
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 1:19 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
> On 2016-01-06 11:43:34 +1100 (+1100), Lana Brindley wrote:
> [...]
>> I’m starting to think that DocImpact needs to simply be retired then
>
> Alternatively, let the remaining projects which currently auto-open
> bugs for openstack-manuals
On 2016-01-06 11:43:34 +1100 (+1100), Lana Brindley wrote:
[...]
> I’m starting to think that DocImpact needs to simply be retired then
Alternatively, let the remaining projects which currently auto-open
bugs for openstack-manuals switch to opening bugs against themselves
and allow their bug triag
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:35 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2016 08:01 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
>> I’m late to this party because holidays (Thanks Anne for bringing it to
>> my attention).
>>
>> First of all, sorry this came as a surprise. I tried hard to make sure
>> everyone who needed to kn
On 01/04/2016 08:01 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
> I’m late to this party because holidays (Thanks Anne for bringing it to
> my attention).
>
> First of all, sorry this came as a surprise. I tried hard to make sure
> everyone who needed to know knew, but that’s naturally a difficult thing
> to do.
>
I’m late to this party because holidays (Thanks Anne for bringing it to my
attention).
First of all, sorry this came as a surprise. I tried hard to make sure everyone
who needed to know knew, but that’s naturally a difficult thing to do.
To the implementation details: I really am struggling to
Excerpts from Andreas Jaeger's message of 2015-12-18 20:31:04 +0100:
> On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> >>> Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
> >>> theoert
Hey all,
So I just caught up on this thread and the corresponding scrollback in IRC.
First of all, sorry if this came as a surprise to anybody. As Andreas
pointed out this was highlighted in a number of docs email to this list,
but I understand why they might have been overlooked.
The resource u
On 12/18/2015 02:31 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
theoertically processing commit me
Le 18/12/2015 20:31, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
theoertically processing commit messages for D
On 12/18/2015 07:45 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be
part of this spec -
ht
On 12/18/2015 01:34 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
>> theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be
>> part of this spec -
>> http://specs.openstack.org/opensta
On 12/18/2015 07:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be
part of this spec -
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/docs-specs/specs/mitaka/review-docimpact.html
Lana ta
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
> theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be
> part of this spec -
>
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/docs-specs/specs/mitaka/review-doci
26 matches
Mail list logo
