Open Stack

On 12/11/14 15:12, Jiri Tomasek wrote:
> Approach on using Xstatic packages vs Js tooling:
> 
> As only problem with using js tooling should be just actual packaging of
> it, I think it makes sense to use these tools and make development
> simpler then going other way around and using Xstatic packages - which
> means devs would have to care about getting stuff packaged as xstatic
> and added to the code, while maintaining proper versions and making sure
> that they work ok together. NPM and Bower do this for us. Common sense
> tells me packagers should take care of packaging.
> Packaging of these tools will have to get resolved somehow anyway, as
> there will be rise in requirements of using them not just from Horizon...

I can't speak for the rest but that part doesn't seem correct to me. The
XStatic packages are Python packages (as in, dependencies) that the
Horizon team is responsible for (when they don't already exist) and
maintains on stackforge, so we do have to create them and make sure they
all work well together. The later packaging as rpm or deb or others is
left to the distro packagers of course.

There are instructions already on how to create xstatic packages [1],
it's not very complicated and just takes some review time.

Thanks,

Julie

[1]
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/horizon/contributing.html#javascript-and-css-libraries