On 02/17/2017 02:42 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
>
> Am 16.02.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud
On 02/16/2017 08:51 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>>
>>> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
>>> image and the server WG we have decided for
Am 16.02.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>> On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
>>> image and the server WG we have decided for now to
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
>> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud
>> base image out of the server
On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud
> base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to
> have it stay as owned by the Atomic WG
On 02/13/2017 12:50 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
>> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud
>> base image out of the server WG.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud
> base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to
> have it stay
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
> I don't think we should put a huge amount of work into the wiki, at
> least for public consumption. (It's okay for SIG/WG workspace.) I
> *hope* that we will have our revitalized docs infrastructure online
> RSN.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:40:00PM +0530, Trishna Guha wrote:
> Just another thought jumped in my mind:
> We have lots of wikis with *Cloud* namespace. What about that?
> Do we want to create wikis with *Atomic* namespace as well? I'm not
> sure if this can be the best solution.
> If yes we need
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud
> base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to
> have it stay
On 08/02/17, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud
> base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to
> have it stay as owned by the Atomic WG so here is
After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base
image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud
base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to
have it stay as owned by the Atomic WG so here is what I would like to
propose:
- Have the
12 matches
Mail list logo