Open Stack

Sounds good,

Will do when I get back from HK, still here exploring :-)

Sent from my really tiny device...

> On Nov 11, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok. Cool. Let's just put an upper bound on it for now then (mainly
> because it's listed as 0.1, so that version to me suggests that it might
> still have breaking API churn)
> 
>> On 11/11/2013 07:53 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> I can put an upper bound on the version, that's fine with me. I'd rather not avoid adding taskflow to wait until some new preemptive gating process is in place. That doesn't exactly feel fair to the people creating taskflow or the people using it, especially since people are integrating it at this moment and it would be sad for their work to be lost due to a requirement line.
>> 
>> As for part of oslo, cc'ing Doug since from my talks with him seem to be that it's just a library and to encourage the growth of useful libraries the red tape isn't needed (aka, taskflow has no strong ties to oslo and I'm not sure it should). 
>> 
>> Sent from my really tiny device...
>> 
>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 7:33 PM, "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> There is a change up to add taskflow to the global requirements. I have
>>> no problem with this in principle, but it's one more that's in the set
>>> of things like pecan, wsme and friends that are in the set of things
>>> that Sean talked about in preemptively gate the universe.
>>> 
>>> I'd like to not add it until we have a plan for at least assymetrical
>>> gating, so that changes to taskflow at least can't break cinder and friends.
>>> 
>>> Further, I think we might need to discuss how to include libraries such
>>> as this. Should taskflow be a part of oslo?
>>