<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>Hi Tom,<br>
<br>
Yeah, i've played with the trove packaging in particular and have experienced what you were talking about. Some software is green, some packages are green, and some things are just plain buggy in the OpenStack bigger tent.<br>
<br>
Level of effort is a concern for sure.<br>
<br>
Knowing if its in my distro of choice does save me work. Telling if a package is buggy or not is much harder to maintain since the packager can release many new versions frequently and if you arent keeping track some how, you wont know if its fixed or not,
possibly turning folks away when there isnt a problem any more.<br>
<br>
Maybe a compromise for level of effort is to just allow users to give it a number of stars on a website, and age them off every month or so? Or keep track of package version in the package repo and expire the stars when a new package comes out? That could be
automated.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Kevin <strong>
<div><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"> </font></div>
</strong>
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Tom Fifield<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 07, 2015 6:54:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openstack-operators] [Tags] Tags Team Repo & our first tags!<br>
</font><br>
<div></div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">On 06/06/15 03:12, Fox, Kevin M wrote:<br>
> With my op hat on, I'd very much prefer packaged-in-ubuntu/packaged-in-centos or packaged=ubuntu,centos. If its just packaged=True, I'd still have to go look up if its in my distro of choice.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kevin,<br>
<br>
Many thanks for the input.<br>
<br>
May I ask, would you* be ok with a structurified version of this:<br>
<br>
"Trove packaging: generally looks good as best we can tell. Though, it<br>
seems like they screwed it up in Ubuntu this time and here's a link to<br>
<a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openstack-trove/+bug/1308523">https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openstack-trove/+bug/1308523</a>"<br>
<br>
?<br>
<br>
Then, from there, assuming you're using centos for the sake of example,<br>
maybe one of two things would happen:<br>
<br>
1) You'd use it, confident that at least someone had had a quick look<br>
and said "yeah, looks OK at first glance", and it ends up working<br>
2) You're the first person to discover this massive bug with centos<br>
packaging, and there's some easy way to update the tag to say:<br>
<br>
"Trove packaging is: pretty average, after some experience. There are<br>
problems in multiple distros<br>
(<a href=""></a>https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openstack-trove/+bug/1308523<br>
, <a href="http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=xxxx">http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=xxxx</a>"<br>
<br>
<br>
Reason I'm asking - I think we can probably get this kind of system<br>
going with fairly minimal effort, but I think going through every<br>
distro(+distroversion) for every project is probably beyond our<br>
volunteer numbers at the moment.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
<br>
* perhaps assuming that you're a new user considering adopting Trove?<br>
<br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Kevin<br>
> ________________________________________<br>
> From: Jeremy Stanley [fungi@yuggoth.org]<br>
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:42 AM<br>
> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Tags] Tags Team Repo & our first tags!<br>
> <br>
> On 2015-06-05 18:34:02 +0000 (+0000), Tim Bell wrote:<br>
>> But if there is one package out of all of the OS options, does<br>
>> that make true or false ? Or do we have a rule that says a 1 means<br>
>> that at least CentOS and Ubuntu are packaged ?<br>
>><br>
>> I remain to be convinced that a 0 or 1 can be achieved within the<br>
>> constraints that we need something which is useful for the<br>
>> operators rather than mathematically correct.<br>
>><br>
>> Let’s not forget the target audience for the Ops tags.<br>
> <br>
> This doesn't seem orthogonal to the idea of tags as boolean flags.<br>
> Is there any reason not to have separate tags like<br>
> packaged-in-ubuntu and packaged-in-centos? Of course there's still<br>
> some ambiguity over details like "how new is the packaged version?"<br>
> and "in what release(s) of the distro?" but those are probably<br>
> things you could build tag-qualifying rules around.<br>
> --<br>
> Jeremy Stanley<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-operators mailing list<br>
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-operators mailing list<br>
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-operators mailing list<br>
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>