On 2024-06-10 18:55, Herve Beraud wrote:
Thanks Daniel, what do you propose as the next step? You're welcome. My next step is to propose a specs inside oslo project about it.
Concerning Cotyledon, indeed, the number of active maintainers should be one of our considerations in our research of alternatives for oslo.service. However, I'd highlight the fact that the latest PR (authored by Takashi) was merged one day after its proposal, so the maintainer looks active and reactive: https://github.com/sileht/cotyledon/pull/64 <https://github.com/sileht/cotyledon/pull/64> I agree with you.
If we chose Cotyledon as an alternative to oslo.service, oslo maintainers may become a bit more involved in Cotyledon, like Takashi did 2 months ago. That seems like a good compromise. Both teams can benefit from this move. Yes if you move on it I will also be more active in cotyledon for sure.
I'd also highlight the fact that Cotyledon was designed with an Openstack context in mind. It was designed to be an alternative to oslo.service. We should also consider the compatibility between APIs of both libraries. The migration would be cheap in comparison to using another alternative to oslo.service. IMO, It would be hard to find a better alternative than that. I agree with you.
-- Daniel Bengtsson Software Engineer