Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

2017-08-10 Thread Daniel Alley
+1 On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Davis > wrote: > >> +1. I think this is worth trying out. >> >> >> David >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Thank you Brian! >>> >>> On Thu,

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

2017-08-10 Thread Dennis Kliban
+1 On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Davis wrote: > +1. I think this is worth trying out. > > > David > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Thank you Brian! >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse >> wrote: >> >>> A small language clari

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

2017-08-10 Thread Tatiana Tereshchenko
+1 Thanks, Brian! Tanya On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Davis wrote: > +1. I think this is worth trying out. > > > David > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Thank you Brian! >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse >> wrote: >> >>>

Re: [Pulp-dev] Redundancy in docstrings and serializer help_text

2017-08-10 Thread Michael Hrivnak
This seems like a good approach. I'd summarize it as: Try hard to put the documentation for each field of a model only on the corresponding serializer, which of course ends up being the API docs. That makes the API docs the primary source of truth. In cases where there is something that is not ap

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

2017-08-10 Thread David Davis
+1. I think this is worth trying out. David On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: > +1 > > Thank you Brian! > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> A small language clarification was pushed based on feedback via comment: >> https://github.com/bmbou

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

2017-08-10 Thread Austin Macdonald
+1 Thank you Brian! On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > A small language clarification was pushed based on feedback via comment: > https://github.com/bmbouter/pups/commit/f5b7282b2d2e369b90f149e4cc2522 > 6bb093171b > > Voting is open for the PUP1 revisions. Normally the vot

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

2017-08-10 Thread Brian Bouterse
A small language clarification was pushed based on feedback via comment: https://github.com/bmbouter/pups/commit/f5b7282b2d2e369b90f149e4cc25226bb093171b Voting is open for the PUP1 revisions. Normally the voting window is longer, but this topic has been discussed for a long time. The core team ea