Re: [Pulp-dev] De-duplicating Demo Content

2017-10-04 Thread Austin Macdonald
I agree that we want to highlight community contributions, but I don't understand why we would want to separate them from other user facing changes. As a user/developer watching the demo, it doesn't make a difference to me where the content came from. Here's what I'm thinking: *Release updates*

Re: [Pulp-dev] De-duplicating Demo Content

2017-09-29 Thread Michael Hrivnak
Sure, I'd be happy to do that. I do think there's plenty of room for a "What's happening with the technology" segment and a "What else is going on in the community" segment if you'd like to keep doing highlights there, but otherwise I am happy to take care of it. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:43 AM,

Re: [Pulp-dev] De-duplicating Demo Content

2017-09-28 Thread Michael Hrivnak
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Robin Chan wrote: > Because I just don't know, and because it might help with this > proposal consideration...could we list out the types of updates that > belong in the demo? > In theory, the demo is an opportunity to highlight anything at all

Re: [Pulp-dev] De-duplicating Demo Content

2017-09-28 Thread Robin Chan
Because I just don't know, and because it might help with this proposal consideration...could we list out the types of updates that belong in the demo? On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Austin Macdonald wrote: > +1 to "Release Updates" because it doesn't make an artificial

Re: [Pulp-dev] De-duplicating Demo Content

2017-09-28 Thread Austin Macdonald
+1 to "Release Updates" because it doesn't make an artificial distinction between work done by Red Hat employees and work done by the community. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > During the sprint demos there are two sections which regularly (if not