On 2014-07-17 09:37, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 07/16/2014 10:30 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>> On 16 July 2014 14:07, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:33AM +, Tim Bell wrote:
> It seems a pity to archive the comments and reviewer lists alo
Agreed.
And we should keep records for each release.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> As we approach Juno-3, a number of specs have been correctly marked as
> abandoned since they are not expected to be ready in time for the release.
>
>
>
> Is there a mechanism to keep these
On 07/16/2014 10:30 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 16 July 2014 14:07, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:33AM +, Tim Bell wrote:
It seems a pity to archive the comments and reviewer lists along
with losing a place to continue the discu
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:30:56PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
> My intention was that once the specific project is open for K specs,
> people will restore their original patch set, and move the spec to the
> K directory, thus keeping all the history.
>
> For Nova, the open reviews, with a -2, are
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:30 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 16 July 2014 14:07, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:33AM +, Tim Bell wrote:
It seems a pity to archive the comments and reviewer lists along
with losing a place to continue
On 16 July 2014 14:07, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:33AM +, Tim Bell wrote:
>>> It seems a pity to archive the comments and reviewer lists along
>>> with losing a place to continue the discussions even if we are not
>>> expecting to see cod
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:33AM +, Tim Bell wrote:
>> It seems a pity to archive the comments and reviewer lists along
>> with losing a place to continue the discussions even if we are not
>> expecting to see code in Juno.
>
> Agreed, that is sub-optimal to say t
Le 16/07/2014 14:09, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit :
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:33AM +, Tim Bell wrote:
>> As we approach Juno-3, a number of specs have been correctly marked
>> as abandoned since they are not expected to be ready in time for the
>> release.
>>
>> Is there a mechanism to keep
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:33AM +, Tim Bell wrote:
> As we approach Juno-3, a number of specs have been correctly marked
> as abandoned since they are not expected to be ready in time for the
> release.
>
> Is there a mechanism to keep these specs open for discussion even
> though there is
As we approach Juno-3, a number of specs have been correctly marked as
abandoned since they are not expected to be ready in time for the release.
Is there a mechanism to keep these specs open for discussion even though there
is no expectation that they will be ready for Juno and 'defer' them to
10 matches
Mail list logo
