Open Stack

+1 -- there is no point for commiting that review with external urls if
those repos are to be created in stackforge.

P.

On 03/19/2015 03:02 PM, Evgeniy L wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I agree, lets create separate repo with its own cores and remove
> fuel_development from fuel-web.
> 
> But in this case I'm not sure if we should merge the patch which
> has links to non-stackforge repositories, because location is going
> to be changed soon.
> 
> Also it will be cool to publish it on pypi.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
> <skalinowski at mirantis.com <mailto:skalinowski at mirantis.com>> wrote:
> 
>     As I wrote in the review already: I like the idea of merging
>     those two tools and making a separate repository. After that
>     we could make they more visible in our documentation and wiki
>     so they could benefit from being used by broader audience.
> 
>     Same for vagrant configuration - if it's useful (and it is
>     since newcomers are using them) we could at least move under
>     Mirantis organization on Github.
> 
>     Best,
>     Seabastian
> 
> 
>     2015-03-19 13:49 GMT+01:00 Przemyslaw Kaminski
>     <pkaminski at mirantis.com <mailto:pkaminski at mirantis.com>>:
> 
>         Hello,
> 
>         Some time ago I wrote some small tools that make Fuel
>         development easier
>         and it was suggested to add info about them to the documentation --
>         here's the review link [1].
> 
>         Evgenyi Li correctly pointed out that we already have something like
>         fuel_development already in fuel-web. I think though that we
>         shouldn't
>         mix such stuff directly into fuel-web, I mean we recently
>         migrated CLI
>         to a separate repo to make fuel-web thinner.
> 
>         So a suggestion -- maybe make these tools more official and create
>         stackforge repos for them? I think dev ecosystem could benefit
>         by having
>         some standard way of dealing with the ISO (for example we get
>         questions
>         from people how to apply new openstack.yaml config to the DB).
> 
>         At the same time we could get rid of fuel_development and merge that
>         into the new repos (it has the useful 'revert' functionality that I
>         didn't think of :))
> 
>         P.
> 
>         [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140355/9/docs/develop/env.rst
> 
>         __________________________________________________________________________
>         OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>         Unsubscribe:
>         OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>         <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>     Unsubscribe:
>     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>