On 02/05/2016 07:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> So, is Poppy "open core"?
I think it's a simple answer: no, Poppy is not open core.
Poppy is not open core... Is Linux Open Core because you have to buy a
processor and ram to run it?
Or is Firefox open core because I have to buy service from a
On 01/12/2016 06:13 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
[...]
> I did not exhaustively verify this but
[...]
A fair question to ask then is, why are you proposing these patches?
> I created a quick poll to tally results
oh no, not another survey! :) Sometimes I feel that survey-itis[1] is a
consequence of
On 12/01/2015 06:38 PM, Spencer Krum wrote:
> There is a thread beginning here:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-October/076962.html
> which covers what to expect from the new software.
Nice! This is awesome: the new review panel lets you edit files on the
web interface.
On 07/15/2015 11:25 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
So I've been following the TC work on tags, and have been slightly
confused by the whole work, so I am wondering if I can get a
'explainlikeimfive' (borrowing from reddit terminology) edition of it.
I'll try :)
You need to think of tags as the
First of all a reminder to everybody doing code reviews:
Avoid sarcasm and jokes
Those travel poorly across TCP/IP and don't translate well in different
languages. Just don't use them.
If you get a negative vote or comments you don't like/understand ask for
more explanations. Offer a place and
On 05/13/2015 11:48 AM, Mike Perez wrote:
The Cinder team has met today [1] to begin discussions on the deadline
for new volume drivers in the Liberty release.
The proposed deadline for volume drivers to be merged by is June 19th 2015
[...]
Great to read this, thanks Mike.
On a wider note,
Thanks Joe for bringing this up. I have always tried to find topics
worth being covered in the weekly newsletter. I assemble that newsletter
thinking of developers and operators as the main targets, I'd like both
audiences to have one place to look at weekly and skim rapidly to see if
they missed
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:26 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
I've seen the number of threads to discuss Ops topics increase in
openstack-dev and the influence of Ops - even just points of views
inherited from the feedback we've got - on reviews has gotten better
as well.
Fantastic, that has
On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 12:59 +0300, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
Again my apologies for the incorrect format - since I am still not
receiving the messages from this thread.
let me know if you want me to investigate this further.
Doug - evidently this is not working as it should. As Chris said
On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 18:28 +0300, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
How about the fact that the definition of an ATC was changed [1] for a
free Summit pass? [2]
This was not a decision of the TC, it was a decision of the Foundation
staff. The definition of ATC has *not* changed, that's embedded in
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 17:00 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I would have to go back and check, but I'm pretty sure the posts were
highlighted in Stef's community newsletter email.
They were, in fact. But I know as a fact that even if people many love
the newsletter, I have the impression that few
On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 16:30 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
What's important to avoid is the blog postings being only reporting of
conclusions. They also need to be invitations to participate in the
discussions. Yes, the mailing list, gerrit and meeting logs have some
of the ongoing discussions but
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 15:02 +, Amrith Kumar wrote:
I would support changes to both reviewstats and stackalytics to do the
following.
1. recognizes and gives credit to '0' comments
2. identifies recheck, reverify and similar directives to the CI
system and flag them appropriately,
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 19:58 +0530, Ganesh R wrote:
I am a newbie to OpenStack, very interested in contributing to
OpenStack development.
Welcome.
Jeremy provided some useful suggestions. Just last week I added to how
to contribute page the links to mentors page:
Folks,
If you have received your discount code to OpenStack summit Vancouver,
stop whatever you're doing and
register *now*
Admission prices go up to $900 tomorrow and you'll have to pay the
difference. *There will be absolutely no exceptions*.
If you're in doubt if you
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 19:01 +, Rochelle Grober wrote:
So, how do we get timely first core review of patches in areas of the
world where Core presence in IRC is slim to none?
I think that most core reviewers use bouncers, so notifying them in the
channel would probably raise a notification
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Perez wrote:
We've been talking about CI's for a year. We started talking about CI
deadlines
in August. If you post a driver for Kilo, it was communicated that you're
required to have a CI by the end of Kilo [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. This
should've
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 16:23 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:
Some folks just will not respect other people's time. To pretend
otherwise is a huge dis-service to folks trying their hardest to
support those worthy of the support.
This may be true in general but I have yet to be convinced that this is
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 15:23 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
The holy grail of this system would be the suitable for production
deployment tag, but no one has figured out how to define it yet.
Are crazy ideas welcome in this phase?
I start with 2 below:
Preface: an idea circulates about visually
On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 17:59 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote:
The longer we try to be both sides of this process, the longer we will
continue to have these back-and-forths about stability vs. innovation.
If I understand correctly your model, it works only for users/operators
who decide to rely on a vendor
Hi David,
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 02:22 +, Chen, Wei D wrote:
I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is
merged, but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of
them (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory
for getting some effective
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 17:42 +0200, Eduard Matei wrote:
Is there a way to specify the Juno version to be installed using
devstack.
Let's please reserve this list for discussions about the *future* of
OpenStack development, not questions about using its tools.
Please, everybody, help us stay
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 17:10 +0200, Duncan Thomas wrote:
I feel the need to abandon changes that seem abandoned
I think there is an agreement that there should be a way to have a clean
view of changesets that are being actively worked on, changes where the
owner is responding to comments, working
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 13:35 -0800, Clay Gerrard wrote:
I think Tom's suggested help us help you is a great pre-abandon
warning. In swift as often as not the last message ended with
something like you can catch me on freenode in #openstack-swift if
you have any questions
Good, this thread
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:00 -0700, Doug Wiegley wrote:
Why do you feel the need to keep them? Do your regularly look at
older patches? Do you know anyone that does?
I don't think that's the point. The point is to try improving
contributor's life by providing them one last useful comment
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 16:44 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
It is good to recognize the impact of this, however, I would suggest
that if having open changes that are not actively being worked is a
problem for statistics,
I don't think it's a problem for the statistics per se. The reports are
only
I'm not expressing myself cleary enough. I don't advocate for the
removal of anything because I like pretty charts. I'm changing the
subject to be even more clear.
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:26 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
I am asking you to please independently remove changes that you don't
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 15:58 -0600, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is that there are a lot of reviews that
appear to have been abandoned; I just cleared several from the
novaclient review queue (or commented on them to see if they were still
alive). I also know of a few
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 14:18 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
Do the features listed in the Release Notes each have appropriate
documentation? So far we just link to the specifications for nova, for
example. [1] So to me, it could be a focus on the specification
acceptance means less time/energy for
On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 21:15 +, Ian Cordasco wrote:
I read it the same was as Doug. I don’t think Jeremy was trying to
imply your reviews would move through more quickly if you reviewed
other people’s work. Just that, as with most open source projects,
there’s always at least 2 distinct
On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 14:54 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
1. Should we have a unified developer guide for the project?
Yes. Absolutely. Yes.
2. Where should it live and how should we manage it?
I think the natural destination for it would be the URL
http://docs.openstack.org/developer (which
Hello folks
we have a bunch of upcoming initiatives to help out new contributors to
OpenStack and we need mentors willing to help newcomers go from zero to
(at least) one merged patch.
OpenStack has always been a welcoming community despite being complex to
navigate for new contributors. If you
Changing the subject since Flavio's call for openness was broader than
just private IRC channels.
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:37 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
If cases of bad community behaviour, such as use of passwd protected
IRC channels, are always primarily dealt with via further private
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 09:44 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Why did we change the rules on summit passes in this way ?
Because there is always a balance to strike between open participation
and effective conversations, while the balance point keeps changing.
In Paris we've noticed a fairly
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 21:11 -0500, Nick Chase wrote:
Does anybody know if a) ATC emails have started to go out yet, and b)
when proposal voting will start?
Voting started:
http://www.openstack.org/vote-vancouver
Hurry, voting closes at 5pm CT on Monday, February 23.
Continue to visit
On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 14:34 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
Also a reminder, you need to be the owner of a change in Gerrit
which merged on or after October 16, 2014 (or have an unexpired
entry in the extra-atcs file within the governance repo) to be in
the list of people who automatically get
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 16:01 +, Amrith Kumar wrote:
How is a private IRC channel any different from a culture of private
discussions? Having a chat over lunch, in the hallway, on the
telephone, etc.,
I will articulate again why I think that a group of leaders of OpenStack
*should not*
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 10:37 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Right. You can't prevent occasional private discussions and pings, and
you shouldn't. It's when you encourage and officialize them (by for
example creating a channel for them) that things start to go bad.
Yes, that's very bad. Private
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 10:35 +, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
I'm not attacking against having summits, I think the face to face
time is incredibly valuable for all kind of things. My point was to
bring up general flaw of the flow between all inclusive decision
making vs. decided in summit session.
On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 09:32 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
Definitely true, to each his/her own. I still consider it unfortunate.
I've also heard core developers state that they stopped reading the
mailing list months ago. Which I also find unfortunate.
That's terrible: do you know why they don't
On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 10:55 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project.
It's good to have a reminder every now and then. Thank you Flavio for
caring enough to notice bad patterns and for raising a flag.
## Keep discussions open
I don't
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 15:20 +, Kevin Bringard (kevinbri) wrote:
I've been talking with a few people about this very thing lately, and
I think much of it is caused by what appears to be our actively
discouraging people from working on it. Most notably, ATC is only
being given to folks
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 13:32 +0400, Anton Zemlyanov wrote:
2) There is no such a thing as OpenStack ID. Should we use Launchpad?
Facebook login? Twitter?
Actually, there is: https://openstackid.org :) It supports OpenID and
OAuth, the code is on
On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 23:05 +, Everett Toews wrote:
To converge the OpenStack APIs to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful
design by creating guidelines that the projects should follow. The
intent is not to create backwards incompatible changes in existing
APIs, but to have new APIs and
On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 16:01 -0800, Michael Still wrote:
However, we got here because no one is maintaining the code in Nova
for the EC2 API. This is despite repeated calls over the last 18
months (at least).
I'd love to get to the root cause before we jump to look for solutions.
The story we
On Sat, 2015-01-17 at 16:07 -0500, Monty Taylor wrote:
It's actually a set of words that is no longer necessary as of the year
2000. It's not communicating anything about a granted license, which is
what the Apache License does - it's actually just asserting that the
original copyright holder
HOW TO VOTE: If you are an eligible voter[1], you should have received
an email with the subject “OpenStack Foundation – 2015 Individual
Director Election” from secret...@openstack.org. This email includes
your unique voting link. If you did not receive an email, please contact
Dear all,
if you've tried the topics on this mailing list and haven't received
emails, well... we had a problem on our side: the topics were not setup
correctly.
Luigi Toscano helped isolate the problem and point at the solution[1].
He noticed that only the QA topic was working and that's the
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 10:35 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
One of the issues here is that the wiki also serves as a default
starting page for all things not on www.openstack.org (its main page
is a list of relevant links). So at the same time we are moving
authoritative content out of the wiki
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 12:52 -0800, Sean Roberts wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up Stef. I have found while introducing
OpenStack fundamentals in the user groups, what seems logical to us,
the fully OpenStack immersed, is confusing to newcomers.
Yeah, I'm diving more in the wiki in
hello folks,
TL;DR Many wiki pages and categories are maintained elsewhere and to
avoid confusion to newcomers we need to agree on a new scope for the
wiki. A suggestion below is to limit its scope to content that doesn't
need/want peer-review and is not hosted elsewhere (no duplication).
The
On 12/09/2014 04:11 PM, by wrote:
[vad] how about the documentation in this case?... bcos it needs some
place to document (a short desc and a link to vendor page) or list these
kind of out-of-tree plugins/drivers... just to make the user aware of
the availability of such plugins/driers which
On 12/05/2014 07:08 AM, Kurt Taylor wrote:
1. Meeting content: Having 2 meetings per week is more than is needed at
this stage of the working group. There just isn't enough meeting content
to justify having two meetings every week.
I'd like to discuss this further: the stated objectives of the
I have adapted to Neutron the specs review dashboard prepared by Joe
Gordon for Nova. Check it out below.
Reminder: the deadline to approve kilo specs is this coming Monday, Dec 15.
On 12/10/2014 02:30 AM, Matthew Gilliard wrote:
So, are we agreed that http://www.openstack.org/community/members/ is
the authoritative place for IRC lookups? In which case, I'll take the
old content out of https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/People and leave a
message directing people where to
On 12/10/2014 01:41 PM, Michael Still wrote:
at the design summit we said that we would not approve specifications
after the kilo-1 deadline, which is 18 December. Unfortunately, we’ve
had a lot of specifications proposed this cycle (166 to my count), and
haven’t kept up with the review
On 12/09/2014 06:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
We already have a solution for tracking the contributor-IRC
mapping--add it to your Foundation Member Profile. For example, mine
is in there already:
http://www.openstack.org/community/members/profile/5479
I recommend updating the
On 12/04/2014 09:24 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
I think we move into very dangerous territory if we are equating a core
review Gerrit permission (it is just a Gerrit permission, if it is
perceived as anything other than that that is a perception we have
created ourselves) with value as an OpenStack
On 11/30/2014 06:44 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
When I log into the site I am unable to nominate people. Any ideas? I
get: *Your account credentials do not allow you to nominate candidates.**”*
That means that the account you're using is not the account of an
Individual Member of OpenStack
On 11/14/2014 09:11 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
Categories emerge automatically as you tag pages into them. No
separate category creation step is required.
True although incomplete. Categories are just pages, like almost
anything in mediawiki, so if you add text [[Category: New_Category]] in
a
Hello folks
in the past months Shari and I have implemented more chunks of the
taxonomy developed for us by Katherine Cranford (a volunteer expert).
Using categories in the wiki pages can help us create dynamic pages and
keep information more visible, well organized and discoverable.
For
On 11/14/2014 02:50 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
In this precise example, I feel like the dynamic page is much less
usable than the static page, due to the deep hierarchy.
Got it. The current taxonomy is trying to map precisely the hierarchy of
Program-Projects-Teams therefore it keeps the Nova
On 11/01/2014 04:31 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
So, just to round out this thread, the key questions are:
* whether a low declining turnout is a real problem
I'd like to point out that there 580 'regular' contributors at the
moment[1], these are the authors of 95% of the OpenStack code. 506
On 10/29/2014 07:02 AM, Ondrej Wisniewski wrote:
If I understand correctly, we cannot use the OpenStack community Git
servers as our central Git repository since developers cannot push to
them. And we don't want to go through Gerrit and the code review
procedure just to share a bit of code
On 10/27/2014 08:51 AM, Drew Fisher wrote:
If devstack itself (not CI, but devstack) is a hard requirement for
integration we need to probably start up a different thread on what the
best way for other OSes like FreeBSD and Solaris to work around this
issue. What should we be looking at? A
Hi Angus,
quite a noble intent, one that requires lots of attempts like this you
have started.
On 10/23/2014 09:32 PM, Angus Salkeld wrote:
I have felt some grumblings about usability issues with Heat
templates/client/etc..
and wanted a way that users could come and give us feedback easily
On 10/23/2014 11:16 PM, Angus Salkeld wrote:
Thanks for those pointers, we very interested in feedback from
operators, but
in this case I am talking more about end users not operators (people
that actually use our API).
Great! There is a working group being formed also for that.
I would
On 10/24/2014 03:03 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
The git link is the reference, and we're working on publishing those,
just have to get a URL/home sorted out.
In the meantime, yes, you can update the wiki page.
Why not delete the wiki altogether? I think stale content on the wiki is
damaging us
Hi Chris
On 10/21/2014 11:08 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
The API Workgroup git repository has been setup and you can access it
here.
Cool, adding it to the repos to watch.
There is some content there though not all the proposed guidelines from
the wiki page are in yet:
hi Nick,
On 09/29/2014 02:06 PM, Nicholas Chase wrote:
Because we know that the networking documentation needs particular
attention, we're starting there. We have a Networking Guide, from which
we will ultimately pull information to improve the networking section of
the admin guide.
I
On 09/24/2014 09:09 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
I think the wiki is a great place to get ideas out while we look for a
cross-project specs workflow in the meantime.
The wiki is a great place to store things temporarily until they mature
and find a stable home :)
Speaking of wiki, those of you that
On 09/24/2014 10:05 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Whatever it ends up being, it needs to have some teeth to it. Otherwise,
we're going to end up in the exact same place we're in now, where each
project does something slightly different.
+1
I think getting started and produce some material to discuss
On Fri 19 Sep 2014 09:25:10 AM PDT, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
Here we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think core reviewers
hiding behind an automated process so that they don't have to
confront contributors about stalled/inadequate changes is inherently
less friendly. Clearly you feel that
Thank you Daniel, great job.
On 09/17/2014 09:03 AM, Daniel Izquierdo wrote:
* Further work
=
- Add Juno release information
It's coming :)
- Allow to have projects navigation per release
This is interesting
- Add Askbot data per release
This is really not needed, don't spend
On 09/15/2014 03:56 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
A few of us have decided to pull together a regular (cadence to be
determined) video series taking on deep dives inside of OpenStack,
looking at code, explaining why things work that way, and fielding
questions from anyone interested.
For lack of a
On 09/05/2014 12:36 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
How can the average deployer know whether a stackforge is
a. An early prototype which has completed (such as some of the
early LBaaS packages)
b. A project which has lost its initial steam and further
investment is not foreseen
c.
On 09/10/2014 02:27 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Well, both proposals can be done : we can create subteams and the
Subteam-Approval Gerrit label right know before Kilo, and we could split
the virt repos by later once the interfaces and prereqs are done.
That's what I mean in fact: create sub team
On 09/10/2014 12:56 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
I reject soundly and fundamentally the idea that Open Source projects
NEED a commercial ecosystem to provide solid quality software.
That's not what I said. I said that assuring the quality of code on a
public repository is not necessarily something
On 09/09/2014 06:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
CLAs are a well known and documented barrier to casual contributions
I'm not convinced about this statement, at all. And since I think it's
secondary to what we're discussing, I'll leave it as is and go on.
I've done both ... I do prefer the patch
On 09/05/2014 07:07 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
Actually, I don't think this analysis is accurate. Some people are
simply interested in small aspects of a project. It's the scratch your
own itch part of open source. The thing which makes itch scratchers
not lone wolfs is the desire to go the
Hi Jyoti
This is the wrong email list: we use openstack-dev only to discuss
future development of OpenStack project. Use the General mailing list
or the one for Operators (check http://lists.openstack.org).
Alternatively search for answers (and if you don't find any, ask
questions) on
The DefCore project is moving forward and needs more and more eyes on
it. The next meetings are on Sept 9 and 10, with the same agenda to
facilitate global access.
I'm sharing the details below. All members of OpenStack ecosystem should
follow this process closely as it is going to define what an
On Fri 29 Aug 2014 03:03:34 PM PDT, James E. Blair wrote:
It's the best way we have right now, until we have time to make it more
self-service. We received one third-party CI request in 2 years, then
we received 88 more in 6 months. Our current process is built around
the old conditions. I
On 08/29/2014 11:17 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
After moving to use ZNC, I find IRC works much better for me now, but
I am still learning really.
There! this sentence has two very important points worth highlighting:
1- when people say IRC they mean IRC + a hack to overcome its limitation
2-
On Fri 29 Aug 2014 12:47:00 PM PDT, Elizabeth K. Joseph wrote:
Third-party-request
This list is the new place to request the creation or modification of
your third party account. Note that old requests sent to the
openstack-infra mailing list don't need to be resubmitted, they are
already in
On 08/28/2014 03:04 PM, Susanne Balle wrote:
Just for us to learn about the incubator status, here are some of the
info on incubation:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Approved/Incubation
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/NewProjects
These are not the correct documents
On 08/21/2014 03:12 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
I wonder where discussion around the proposal is running. Is it public?
Yes, it's public, and this thread is part of it. Look at the dates of
the wiki: this is a recent proposal (first appearance Aug 11), came out
to address the GBP issue, quickly
On 08/25/2014 02:36 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
So to see if we can get something useful from this thread.
not on this mailing list. Move it somewhere else: this thread is off
topic here.
/stef
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
On Mon 25 Aug 2014 03:38:18 PM CDT, Zane Bitter wrote:
I'd say we've done fairly well, but I would attribute that at least in
part to the fact that we've treated the PTL as effectively the
temporary release management contact more than the guy who will
resolve disputes for us. In other words,
On 08/22/2014 08:19 PM, John Dickinson wrote:
I think Anne makes some excellent points about the pattern being
proposed being unlikely to be commonly implemented across all the
programs (or, at best, very difficult). Let's not try to formalize
another best practice that works many times and
On 08/21/2014 10:14 AM, Doug Wiegley wrote:
We made the voice/IRC decision in the very format that favors voice. So
in the interest of putting the discussion to bed, voice your opinions here
in a non-voice way:
I was about to voice (ha!) my opinion there but I stopped because I
don't think we
On 08/21/2014 08:00 AM, thomas.pessi...@orange.com wrote:
Sorry if I am not on the right mailing list. I would like to get some
information.
No problem, this is the correct mailing list as this message is about
discussing the future of an openstack component.
I would like to know if I am a
I think we can't throw Ceilometer and Triple-O in the same discussion:
they're two separate issues IMHO, with different root causes and
therefore different solutions.
On 08/21/2014 06:27 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
The point I've been making is
that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer
Hi Szepe,
On Wed 20 Aug 2014 11:33:47 AM PDT, Szépe Viktor wrote:
Thank you for your answer.
That workflow seems a huge job for me.
I leave this patch up to you.
thanks for sending this fix. You've stumbled upon one of the known
issues of OpenStack's way to deal with small patches like
Thanks for the summary Trevor.
On 08/18/2014 01:25 PM, Trevor Vardeman wrote:
1) Discuss future of Octavia in light of Neutron-incubator project proposal.
a) There are many problems with Neutron-Incubator as currently described
Let's be specific, enumerate the problems and address them,
On 08/19/2014 08:39 AM, Eichberger, German wrote:
Just to be clear: We all think the incubator is a great idea and if
some things are ironed out will be a good way to onboard new projects
to Neutron. What bothers me is the timing. Without warning we were
put in an incubator in the span of like
On 08/19/2014 07:37 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
All of these projects should be able to live in the Program, in the
openstack/ code namespace, for as long as the project is actively
developed, and let the contributor communities in these competing
projects *naturally* work to do any of the following:
On 08/13/2014 07:33 AM, Ian Wells wrote:
I have no great answer to this, but is there a way - perhaps via team
sponsorship from cores to ensure that the general direction is right,
and cloned repositories for purpose-specific changes, as one example -
that we can get an audience of people to
On 08/12/2014 06:46 PM, Wuhongning wrote:
I couldn't have been at the IRC meeting for the time difference, are
there any conclusion for this topic, or is it still open?
I, the PTL, some core reviewers and many in the GBP team are actively
working on a proposal to send to the list for quick
On 08/08/2014 02:37 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I agree with Eoghan here. The main goal of an agile/lean system is to
maximize a development team productivity. The main goal of Open source
project management is not to maximize productivity. It’s to maximize
contributions. I wrote about that a
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
