Open Stack

It is something different from what I see.

Repos can be called fuel-dev-utils and fuel-vagrant-dev.

P.

On 03/19/2015 09:43 PM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
>