Open Stack

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>wrote:

> Sean Dague wrote:
> > Honestly, if we are going to track this, we should probably do the set
> > of things that reviewers tend to do when running through these.
> >
> > License:
> > Upstream Location:
> > Ubuntu/Debian Package: Y/N? (url)
> > Fedora Package: Y/N? (url)
> > Suse Package: Y/N? (url)
> > Last Release: Date (in case of abandonware)
> > Python 3 support: Y/N? (informational only)
> >
> > I'd honestly stick that in a yaml file instead, and have something
> > sanity check it on new requirements add.
>
> Licensing is the only legally-binding issue at stake, the rest are
> technically-binding issues that we consider when we accept or reject a
> new dependency. I'm not saying there is no value in tracking that extra
> information, just saying that we really need to track licensing. I don't
> want perfection to get in the way of making baby steps towards making
> things better.
>
> Tracking licensing is a good first step, and having full licensing
> coverage will take some time. We shouldn't block on YAML conversion or
> full technical information... As a first step let's just accept patches
> that mention licensing information in trailing comments, then if someone
> wants to convert the requirements files to YAML so that they can contain
> more information, great!
>

I added a note about this to the review criteria list [1].

Doug

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Requirements#Review_Criteria





>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140219/967c1ef6/attachment.html>