Open Stack

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at yahoo-inc.com>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).
>

Right. Taskflow is new work and with an existing development team and
without any dependencies on the rest of Oslo, so I don't think it needs to
go through the Oslo processes. Josh and I agreed it should just live on
stackforge.

Doug


>
> 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?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/attachments/20131112/3f683532/attachment.html>