Open Stack

+1

I like that idea. I think it also ties in nicely with both the Monitoring
and Tools WGs.

Some projects have a directory called "contrib" that contains contributed
items which might not be up to standard. Would that be a simple solution
for the "dumping ground"?



On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Kris G. Lindgren <klindgren at godaddy.com>
wrote:

> If we are going to be stringent on formatting – I would also like to see
> us be relatively consistent on arguments/env variables that are needed to
> make a script run.  Some pull in ENV vars, some source a rc file, some just
> say already source your rc file to start with, others accept command
> options.  It would be nice if we had a set of curated scripts that all
> worked in a similar fashion.
>
> Also, to Joe's point. It would be nice if we had two place for scripts.  A
> "dumping ground" that people could share what they had.  And a curated one,
> where everything within the curated repo follows a standard set of
> conventions/guidelines.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Kris Lindgren
> Senior Linux Systems Engineer
> GoDaddy
>
> From: Joe Topjian
> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:43 PM
> To: JJ Asghar
> Cc: "openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org"
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something
> other than NOOP in our jenkins tests
>
> So this will require bash scripts to adhere to bashate before being
> accepted? Is it possible to have the check as non-voting? Does this open
> the door to having other file types be checked?
>
> IMHO, it's more important for the OSOps project to foster collaboration
> and contributions rather than worry about an accepted style.
>
> As an example, yesterday's commits used hard-tabs:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228545/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228534/
>
> I think we're going to see a lot of variation of styles coming in.
>
> I don't want to come off as sounding ignorant or disrespectful to other
> projects that have guidelines in place -- I fully understand and respect
> those decisions.
>
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM, JJ Asghar <jj at chef.io> wrote:
>
>> Awesome! That works!
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> JJ Asghar
>> c: 512.619.0722 t: @jjasghar irc: j^2
>>
>> On 9/29/15 1:27 PM, Christian Berendt wrote:
>> > On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote:
>> >> So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that should be
>> >> leveraged in our gates/validations?
>> >
>> > I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for
>> >
>> > * osops-tools-monitoring: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/
>> > * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/
>> >
>> > Christian.
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150929/ccf253b1/attachment.html>