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

+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

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

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

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

+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

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

+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