+1 I suggested an addition, to increment the PUP version whenever a change is made. I considered suggesting a version scheme to indicate major and minor changes, but AFAICT there isn't a practical need beyond a simple integer. If the process is too cumbersome for typo fixing (for example), we can adjust it later.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 > > > > -------- > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Dana Walker >> >> Associate Software Engineer >> >> Red Hat >> >> <https://www.redhat.com> >> <https://red.ht/sig> >> >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Milan Kovacik <mkova...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey David, >>>> >>>> thanks, +1 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> milan >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:49 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I’ve opened a PR with the process on how to revise a PUP. >>>>> Reviews/feedback are welcome: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/11 >>>>> >>>>> I’d also like to call a vote on this proposed change. Here’s the >>>>> voting model from PUP-1: >>>>> >>>>> +1: "Will benefit the project and should definitely be adopted." >>>>> +0: "Might benefit the project and is acceptable." >>>>> -0: "Might not be the right choice but is acceptable." >>>>> -1: "I have serious reservations that need to be thought through and >>>>> addressed." >>>>> >>>>> Deadline will be July 22, 2018. >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:14 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> While there is a process for revising PUPs before they are >>>>>> accepted[0], we don’t have any process for revising PUPs after they are >>>>>> accepted. I’d like to upate PUP-1[1] to create a simple but formal >>>>>> process >>>>>> for revising accepted PUPs. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was thinking we should add a section (“Revising an Accepted PUP”) >>>>>> that says say revising a PUP follows the same process as creating a new >>>>>> PUP. This includes an initial discussion period followed by a PR against >>>>>> the PUP with the proposed change. After that, there should be a vote >>>>>> decided by our existing lazy consensus model. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#revision >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
