On 28 December 2017 at 06:57, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
> It was a gating criteria for stadium status. The idea was that the for a
> stadium project the neutron team would have review authority over the API
> but wouldn't necessarily review or be overly familiar with the
> implementation.
>
> A project
I think it sort of was intentional, although probably not the primary focus. I
don’t remember if it is a stadium requirement or merely a suggestion, but I
believe it is strongly encouraged that “official” stadium sub-projects should
follow neutron’s release cycle whereas “unofficial” projects ar
Armando,
I agree with Paul. My understanding was that the API definition files for
stadium projects were to be included in neutron-lib to ensure suitable
oversight.
- Louis
From: CARVER, PAUL [mailto:pc2...@att.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 11:35 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
On 29 December 2017 at 11:00, Ian Wells wrote:
> On 28 December 2017 at 06:57, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
>
>> It was a gating criteria for stadium status. The idea was that the for a
>> stadium project the neutron team would have review authority over the API
>> but wouldn't necessarily review or be o