Open Stack

On 12/06/15 13:45 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
>On 06/12/2015 01:31 PM, Dirk Müller wrote:
>>> If instead it seems
>>> the differences are minor enough that combining efforts is a win for
>>> everyone, then that's even better, but I don't see it as the required
>>> outcome here personally.
>>
>> Right. We've started with an open discussion and not started with any
>> of those two outcomes in mind already. I think thats also why we
>> agreed to start with a "green field" and not seed the repos with any
>> of the distro's existing spec files.
>>
>> To me it looks promising that we can mechanically compile the $distro
>> policy conformant .spec file from the canonical upstream naming, and
>> at some point that compile step might end up being a "cp".
>
>Yikes ... having to start green field and drop history from the last
>several years seems quite unfortunate.  It kind of sounds like "too much
>work to be worth it" to me, but I'm just on the sidelines here.
>
>Anyway, my main objective was just to make sure nobody felt like
>combining efforts was the only acceptable outcome.  I'm happy with
>whatever you all end up deciding is most helpful overall.

Just wanted to add that I agree with Russell's comments on this topic.
I'm a happy observer of this effort but I'd love you all to amke the
best decision for these projects and it seems you're working towards
that.

Cheers,
Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150615/d00299ea/attachment.pgp>