Open Stack

Mike,

> I also wanted to add that there is a PR already on adding plugins
> repos to stackforge: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147169/

All this looks good, but it’s not clear when this patch will be merged and repos are created.
So the question is what should we do with the current spec made in fuel-specs[1,2] which are targeted for plugins?
And how will look development process for plugins added to 6.1 roadmap? 
Especially for plugins came not from external vendors and partners. Will we create separate projects on the Launchpad and duplicate our 
For now I’m not sure if we need to wait for new infrastructure created in stackforge/launchpad for each plugin and follow the common 
procedure to land current plugins to existing repos during 6.1 milestone.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129586/ <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129586/>
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/148475/4 <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/148475/4>
Regards,
Alexander Ignatov



> On 23 Jan 2015, at 12:43, Nikolay Markov <nmarkov at mirantis.com> wrote:
> 
> I also wanted to add that there is a PR already on adding plugins
> repos to stackforge: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147169/
> 
> There is a battle in comments right now, because some people are not
> agree that so many repos are needed.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Mike Scherbakov
> <mscherbakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> Hi Fuelers,
>> we've implemented pluggable architecture piece in 6.0, and got a number of
>> plugins already. Overall development process for plugins is still not fully
>> defined.
>> We initially thought that having all the plugins in one repo on stackforge
>> is Ok, we also put some docs into existing fuel-docs repo, and specs to
>> fuel-specs.
>> 
>> We might need a change here. Plugins are not tight to any particular release
>> date, and they can also be separated each from other in terms of committers
>> and core reviewers. Also, it seems to be pretty natural to keep all docs and
>> design specs associated with particular plugin.
>> 
>> With all said, following best dev practices, it is suggested to:
>> 
>> Have a separate stackforge repo per Fuel plugin in format
>> "fuel-plugin-<name>", with separate core-reviewers group which should have
>> plugin contributor initially
>> Have docs folder in the plugin, and ability to build docs out of it
>> 
>> do we want Sphinx or simple Github docs format is Ok? So people can just go
>> to github/stackforge to see docs
>> 
>> Have specification in the plugin repo
>> 
>> also, do we need Sphinx here?
>> 
>> Have plugins tests in the repo
>> 
>> Ideas / suggestions / comments?
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Nick Markov
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150123/dbc1ce61/attachment.html>