It seemed wiki is better for recording bp and other users(not dev?) can have a nice look. If we put all in pad, it may be mess for different bp? We have some facts: 1. bp needed to be formatted and have a unified view for viewers 2. heavily changes will be applied during CDS mainly 3. latter(after CDS) changes to *bp* needed to be notify So maybe we can register a bp on wiki at first, then heavily changes will happen during CDS and also write in pad. After each session, we need to rewrite(copy?) back to wiki. This way can be a tradeoff between pad and wiki? On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Patrick McGarry <pmcgarry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mostly I just want to do small incremental changes to the process, > especially since it's happening so close to the summit. > > The only thing that I'll miss with an etherpad-only workflow is the > notification on creations/edits, but I'll survive. I think it's just a > matter of enforcing the use of blueprints, regardless of where they > live. > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Patrick McGarry wrote: >>> I think I'm going to take this forward in baby steps. I'm going to collect >>> blueprints via the normal pathway and then just manually capture the data in >>> ether pads when I populate the schedule. For J I'll just direct people >>> directly to ether pads (assuming there is no major objection). >> >> Are you worried about the documented workflow and tooling in the wiki, or >> just want to start with small changes to the process? It's also the >> copying part and most-empty blueprints that I suspect we can avoid without >> loss of value. I'm curious if we go super-light on the tooling if we'll >> find that there are parts we miss or not. >> >> Any other thoughts? >> sage >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> On 02/05/2015 02:50 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >>> I wonder if we should simplify the cds workflow a >>> bit to go straight to an >>> etherpad outline of the blueprint instead of the >>> wiki blueprint doc. I >>> find it a bit disorienting to be flipping between >>> the two, and after the >>> fact find it frustrating that there isn't a single >>> reference to go back to >>> for the outcome of the session (you have to look at >>> both the pad and the >>> bp). >>> >>> Perhaps just using the pad from the get-go will >>> streamline things a bit >>> and make it a little more lightweight? What does >>> everyone think? >>> >>> >>> Sounds good to me. I've also wished there were a single location to >>> capture a session; searching through the wiki for etherpads that >>> aren't linked from the blueprint is a pain. >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Patrick McGarry >>> Director Ceph Community || Red Hat >>> http://ceph.com || http://community.redhat.com >>> @scuttlemonkey || @ceph >>> >>> > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Patrick McGarry > Director Ceph Community || Red Hat > http://ceph.com || http://community.redhat.com > @scuttlemonkey || @ceph > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Best Regards, Wheat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
