Open Stack

Sounds good to me. 

Talked on #openstack-infra with some folks there and just awaiting next
steps.

Doesn't seem like should be anything to hard to adjust/move/...

-Josh

On 1/3/14, 11:27 AM, "Sean Dague" <sean at dague.net> wrote:

>On 01/03/2014 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> Ok, I think I'm fine with that (although not really sure what that
>> entails).
>>
>> What does the living under the 'oslo program' change?
>>
>> Does that entail getting sucked into the incubator (which seems to be
>>what
>> your graduating link is about).
>>
>> I don't think its a good idea for taskflow to be in the 'incubator'.
>> Taskflow is meant to be just like any other 3rd party library.
>
>I didn't mean the incubator, I meant like oslo.* libs that we've spun
>out already.
>
>> Or were u mainly referring to the 'devstack-gate integration' section?
>
>Correct. Just to understand what the libs live under. Basically taskflow
>is getting deeply integrated into projects in the same way oslo.* libs
>are, and as such, given it has non trivial requirements of it's own, we
>have to treat it like all the other OpenStack components and
>symmetrically gate on it.
>
>That will guaruntee you can't release a taskflow library that can break
>OpenStack, because we'll be testing every commit, which is goodness.
>
>> I'd be interested in hearing dougs opinion here (cc'd him) as
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-oslo-splitting-the-incubator
>> would seem to cause even more of these types of new 3rd party libraries
>>to
>> appear on pypi (and therefore causing similar issues of transitive
>> dependencies as taskflow).
>>
>> Will bug u on #openstack-infra soon :-)
>
>Definitely think doug should weigh in as well.
>
>	-Sean
>
>-- 
>Sean Dague
>Samsung Research America
>sean at dague.net / sean.dague at samsung.com
>http://dague.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev