Good catch. I added a short sentence saying the version number should be incremented by 1.
David On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> wrote: > +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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
