Anita, thanks for the response. My comments inline:
> Well then we are in a situation where development ceases until the third > party systems respond. Which is not a situation we want to put ourselves > in. We actually are actively avoiding that situation. > > I don't mean to run after the change is merged, but after is verified, which is the first step. And I don't mean neither that they should vote. So I don't see that means the development ceases until the third party respond... The failure on the '.' at the end of the commit title is a style test, > not something the third party tests would run anyway. > Absolutely agree. My point is that third party have had to run two times: one before the '.' patch and the other one after. And third party opinion is worthless if Jenkins says -1. Just want to avoid the first run. > Thanks, > Anita. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > Regards, -- Jaume Devesa Software Engineer at Midokura
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
