From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Durgin Subject: Re: CDS process Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:36:35 +0100 Message-ID: <54D38E03.4030807@inktank.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:48129 "EHLO mail-wi0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753889AbbBEPgt (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:36:49 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id bs8so11364727wib.5 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 07:36:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil , pmcgarry@redhat.com, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 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