Open Stack

we already have a package with the name fuel-utils please see [1]. I
-1'd the CR over it.

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059206.html

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Alexander Kislitsky
<akislitsky at mirantis.com> wrote:
> +1 for moving fuel_development into separate repo.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I agree, lets create separate repo with its own cores and remove
>> fuel_development from fuel-web.
>>
>> But in this case I'm not sure if we should merge the patch which
>> has links to non-stackforge repositories, because location is going
>> to be changed soon.
>>
>> Also it will be cool to publish it on pypi.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
>> <skalinowski at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As I wrote in the review already: I like the idea of merging
>>> those two tools and making a separate repository. After that
>>> we could make they more visible in our documentation and wiki
>>> so they could benefit from being used by broader audience.
>>>
>>> Same for vagrant configuration - if it's useful (and it is
>>> since newcomers are using them) we could at least move under
>>> Mirantis organization on Github.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Seabastian
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-03-19 13:49 GMT+01:00 Przemyslaw Kaminski <pkaminski at mirantis.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Some time ago I wrote some small tools that make Fuel development easier
>>>> and it was suggested to add info about them to the documentation --
>>>> here's the review link [1].
>>>>
>>>> Evgenyi Li correctly pointed out that we already have something like
>>>> fuel_development already in fuel-web. I think though that we shouldn't
>>>> mix such stuff directly into fuel-web, I mean we recently migrated CLI
>>>> to a separate repo to make fuel-web thinner.
>>>>
>>>> So a suggestion -- maybe make these tools more official and create
>>>> stackforge repos for them? I think dev ecosystem could benefit by having
>>>> some standard way of dealing with the ISO (for example we get questions
>>>> from people how to apply new openstack.yaml config to the DB).
>>>>
>>>> At the same time we could get rid of fuel_development and merge that
>>>> into the new repos (it has the useful 'revert' functionality that I
>>>> didn't think of :))
>>>>
>>>> P.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140355/9/docs/develop/env.rst
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Andrew
Mirantis
Fuel community ambassador
Ceph community