[openstack-dev] [puppet] [fuel] more collaboration request
flavio at redhat.com
Fri Jun 12 12:29:10 UTC 2015
On 12/06/15 03:04 -0700, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 09:31:45AM +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 11/06/15 17:36 +0300, Matthew Mosesohn wrote:
>> >Secondly, I'd like to point out that Fuel is not so different from
>> >what other teams are doing. At the Summit, I heard from others who all
>> >maintain internal Gerrits and internal forks of the modules. The
>> >difference is that Fuel is being worked on in the open in StackForge.
>> >Anyone is free to contribute to Fuel as he or she wishes, take our
>> >patches, or review changesets.
>> TBH, I really dislike the fact that there are internal forks but as
>> long as they are kept internal, I don't really care.
>"Internal" may apply to other projects Matt is referring to, but it does
>not apply to Fuel. Fuel's forks of upstream puppet modules are not
>internal, they're embedded into the fuel-library repository, which,
>along with the rest of Fuel source code, is fully public.
Yup, I was referring to other projects too. I should've been more
explicit but thanks for clarifying.
>> It's not correct to just copy/paste code, sure, but at least they are
>> not making it publicly consumable with the wrong attributions.
>We are making Fuel publicly consumable, and, as I've pointed out in
>previous email, we're keeping all attributions in the source code
>> I do prefer (and I believe Emiliem does as well) to have Fuel in the
>And yet in your previous statements you say that publishing Fuel source
>code is somehow worse than keeping one's modifications of open source
>code unavailable to public. Which one is it?
I was referring to other projects :)
I like Fuel open, I like every project open but I'd very much want
them to do it right.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenStack-dev