[Pulp-dev] Revising PUPs

[Austin Macdonald]

+1

I suggested an addition, to increment the PUP version whenever a change is
made. I considered suggesting a version scheme to indicate major and minor
changes, but AFAICT there isn't a practical need beyond a simple integer.
If the process is too cumbersome for typo fixing (for example), we can
adjust it later.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> --------
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Dana Walker
>>
>> Associate Software Engineer
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Milan Kovacik <mkovacik at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey David,
>>>>
>>>> thanks, +1
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> milan
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:49 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I’ve opened a PR with the process on how to revise a PUP.
>>>>> Reviews/feedback are welcome:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/11
>>>>>
>>>>> I’d also like to call a vote on this proposed change. Here’s the
>>>>> voting model from PUP-1:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1: "Will benefit the project and should definitely be adopted."
>>>>> +0: "Might benefit the project and is acceptable."
>>>>> -0: "Might not be the right choice but is acceptable."
>>>>> -1: "I have serious reservations that need to be thought through and
>>>>> addressed."
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadline will be July 22, 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:14 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> While there is a process for revising PUPs before they are
>>>>>> accepted[0], we don’t have any process for revising PUPs after they are
>>>>>> accepted. I’d like to upate PUP-1[1] to create a simple but formal process
>>>>>> for revising accepted PUPs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was thinking we should add a section (“Revising an Accepted PUP”)
>>>>>> that says say revising a PUP follows the same process as creating a new
>>>>>> PUP. This includes an initial discussion period followed by a PR against
>>>>>> the PUP with the proposed change. After that, there should be a vote
>>>>>> decided by our existing lazy consensus model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#revision
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180720/f7b8b7c2/attachment.htm>