+1 Thank you!
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Dana Walker wrote:
> A PR [0] is up with a proposed update to PUP-4: Code of Conduct [1].
>
> The proposal changes the details of where the Code of Conduct is to be
> displayed.
>
> Please review and provide any comments, suggestions, and +/- 1's t
Sounds good to me. I'll get start a new thread after this one goes through.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:59 PM, David Davis wrote:
> +1 to this update. Thanks @dawalker!
>
> +1 to having a separate discussion for official recognition of plugins. I
> have some questions/thoughts.
>
> David
>
>
> On
+1 to this update. Thanks @dawalker!
+1 to having a separate discussion for official recognition of plugins. I
have some questions/thoughts.
David
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:55 PM Dana Walker wrote:
> Personally, I think those are important suggestions for ensuring a
> welcoming environment ac
Personally, I think those are important suggestions for ensuring a
welcoming environment across the Pulp landscape, but I would prefer that
this update focus on getting the CoC itself publicly discoverable for the
first time without further delay . I welcome you to submit a PR
with another update,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Austin Macdonald
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how to phrase this, but maybe something like "For a plugin to
> be officially recognized by the Pulp community*, it must adopt this code of
> conduct in its entirety, though it is their prerogative to extend it."
>
> * Off
I'm a firm +1 on this, but I do have a related thought.
I think I speak for everyone, but please correct me if I'm wrong, one of
our goals is to have an inclusive community that has very very simple
requirements to be a part of. At the moment, I think we may have taken this
as far as it can go, th
+1
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Dana Walker wrote:
> A PR [0] is up with a proposed update to PUP-4: Code of Conduct [1].
>
> The proposal changes the details of where the Code of Conduct is to be
> displayed.
>
> Please review and provide any comments, suggestions, and +/- 1's to the
> pro
A PR [0] is up with a proposed update to PUP-4: Code of Conduct [1].
The proposal changes the details of where the Code of Conduct is to be
displayed.
Please review and provide any comments, suggestions, and +/- 1's to the
proposed changes by Sunday August 5.
[0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/pul
@dkliban I've tried out your PR and left a question:
https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561#issuecomment-407425172
Won't it be problematic with the openapi definitions causing us to have two
> schemas? Accepting the data in two forms is one thing, but using openapi to
> describe it both ways is so
