Open Stack

Mike,

Yes, probably the best place to describe further plans is README file. I'll
create a patch.

Vladimir Kozhukalov

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Mike Scherbakov <mscherbakov at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Vladimir,
> if you've been behind of this, could you please share further plans in
> separate email thread or (better) provide plans in README in the repo, so
> everyone can be aware of planned changes and can review them too? If you or
> someone else propose a change, please post a link here...
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:27 AM Vladimir Kozhukalov <
> vkozhukalov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> You are right about two independent modules in the repo. That is because
>> the former intention was to get rid of fuel-mirror (and fuel-createmirror)
>> and perestroika and leave only packetary there. Packetary is to be
>> developed so it is able to build not only repositories but  packages as
>> well. So we'll be able to remove perestroika once it is ready. Two major
>> capabilities of fuel-mirror are:
>> 1) create mirror (and partial mirror) and packetary can be used for this
>> instead
>> 2) apply mirror to nailgun (which is rather a matter of python-fuelclient)
>> So fuel-mirror also should be removed in the future to avoid
>> functionality duplication.
>>
>> Those were the reasons not to put them separately. (C) "There can be only
>> one".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Vladimir Kozhukalov
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/01/2015 09:25 AM, Mike Scherbakov wrote:
>>> >  4. I don't quite understand how repo is organized. I see a lot of
>>> >     Python code regarding to fuel-mirror itself and packetary, which is
>>> >     used as fuel-mirrors core and being written and maintained mostly
>>> by
>>> >     Bulat [5]. There are seem to be bash scripts now related to
>>> >     Perestroika, and. I don't quite get how these things relate each to
>>> >     other, and if we expect core reviewers to be merging code into both
>>> >     Perestroika and Packetary? Unless mission of repo, code gets clear,
>>> >     I'd abstain from giving +1...
>>>
>>> Also, why isn't packetary living in its own repository? It seems wrong
>>> to me to have 2 python modules living in the same source repo, unless
>>> they share the same egg-info. It feels weird to have to call setup.py
>>> install twice in the resulting Debian source package. That's not how
>>> things are done elsewhere, and I'd like to avoid special cases, just
>>> because it's fuel...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
> --
> Mike Scherbakov
> #mihgen
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151202/0c9d79c1/attachment.html>