Open Stack

Another interesting question, is do we have connections or good relations
with the projects that we should work with for some of this code.

The monotime one is a good example, its apache licensed, but the last
release was on 2012 (so it might be dead?).

http://code.google.com/p/py-monotime/source/browse/ (not any activity
since 2012 either).

Similarily I guess the question is also applicable to sqlalchemy, kombu,
iso8601 and so on.

I'd be really nice if we had great relations with those 'active' projects
and helped improve the non-openstack contributions as well (since those
contributions will be useful to openstack and others in the future).

Is there any maintained list of any people that are good contact points
for those non-openstack projects (but that openstack uses). Something like
a person that can be involved with the interactions with the openstack
team and say the sqlalchemy team (and so-on).

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at enovance.com>
Organization: eNovance
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 3:35 AM
To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Split Oslo Incubator?

>(Follow-up of the "[olso] use of the "oslo" namespace package" thread)
>
>Hi,
>
>The openstack.common module also known as "Oslo Incubator" or "OpenStack
>Common Libraries" has 44 dependencies. IMO we reach a point where it
>became 
>too huge. Would it be possible to split it into smaller parts and
>distribute 
>it on PyPI with a stable API? I don't know Olso Incubator enough to
>suggest 
>the best granularity. A hint can be the number of dependencies.
>
>Sharing code is a good idea, but now we have SQLAchmey, WSGI,
>cryptographic, 
>RPC, etc. in the same module. Who needs all these features at once? Olso
>Incubator must be usable outside OpenStack.
>
>
>Currently, Oslo Incubator is installed and updated manually using a
>"update.sh" script which copy ".py" files and replace "openstack.common"
>with 
>"nova.openstack.common" (where nova is the name of the project where Oslo
>Incubator is installed).
>
>I guess that update.sh was written to solve the two following points,
>tell me 
>if I'm wrong:
>
> - unstable API: the code changes too often, whereas users don't want to
>update their code regulary. Nova has maybe an old version of Olso
>Incubator 
>because of that.
>
> - only copy a few files to avoid a lot of dependencies and copy useless
>files
>
>Smaller modules should solve these issues. They should be used as module:
>installed system-wide, not copied in each project. So fixing a bug would
>only 
>require a single change, without having to "synchronize" each project.
>
>
>Yesterday, I proposed to add a new time_monotonic() function to the
>timeutils 
>module. We asked me to enhance existing modules (like Monotime).
>
>We should now maybe move code from Oslo Incubator to "upstream" projects.
>For 
>example, timeutils extends the iso8601 module. We should maybe contribute
>to 
>this project and replace usage of timeutils with directy call to iso8601?
>
>Victor
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev