+1
So great! Thanks, Dennis!
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Michael Hrivnak
wrote:
> That is great! Thanks for making this happen.
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Dennis Kliban
> wrote:
>
>> The Jenkins pull request test jobs are now configured
Thanks to everyone for thoughtful comments and suggestions. Since the
comments and changes are still rolling in, we are going to extend the vote.
Voting will take place April 17 at 9pm UTC [0].
[0]: http://bit.ly/2ophhod
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Brian Bouterse
On 04/12/2017 10:48 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote:
> I like pulp3 better, but it has some weirdness. I'm stating the obvious,
> but we wouldn't be able to keep the name for pulp 4. When we put our major
> versions on PyPI, they will all be treated as completely separate projects.
> I don't see a big
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> Yes this is a great improvement. Thanks @dkliban!
>
+1
> FYI you can see an example of this on the Debian plugin PR from @misa [0].
> At the bottom where it shows 'Build Finished' click 'details'.
>
It is great to
I'm very opposed to having any form of the word "project" as part of the name.
It's like having Firefox be
named "firefoxproj". Just as the Mozilla project and the Firefox application
are completely different things,
so are the Pulp project and the Pulp application.
-1 for pulpproj
-1 for
That is great! Thanks for making this happen.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
> The Jenkins pull request test jobs are now configured to publish test
> results to a publicly accessible web server. Each pull request that has
> been tested by Jenkins
I would prefer pulp3 over pulpproj, nice idea Bihan!
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
> I like using the pulp3 namespace.
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Bihan Zhang wrote:
>
>> What about pulp3 as a potential namespace? With