Open Stack

On Oct 8, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 8 October 2014 11:10, Mike Bayer <mbayer at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi folks -
>>> 
>>> So just to update on the status here, for the transactional testing and all that, I’ve had a blueprint in the queue for quite awhile:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> I'll probably time it out upstream if I can't get a review and just
>> drop it straight into testtools. That said, I'm still AWL from
>> everything dealing with this personal matter. Once thats resolved I'll
>> be full steam on unblocking things for this patch set of yours.
>> 
>> If you want to move forward without me - backporting the fixes to
>> testtools would be a good start, jml or thomi or jelmer (amongst
>> others) can review and land and do a release - I'm not critical path.
> 
> I know you put together a PoC (maybe more) showing how to make this work for namespace packages. I wonder if this is just another example of a reason to stop using them, though?
> 
> Does it make sense to move ahead with separate test suite instances and come back to unify that when we resolve the package issue?

As an experiment, I put together a patch for oslo.i18n that moves it out of the namespace package while still retaining the ability to import from the namespace package (say that 10 times fast).

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127323/

Doug