Open Stack

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Mike Dorman <mdorman at godaddy.com> wrote:

> +1 I agree we should do this, etc., etc.
>
> I don’t have a strong preference for #1 or #2, either.  But I do think #1
> is slightly more complicated from a deployer/operator perspective.  It’s
> another module I have to manage, pull in, etc.  Granted this is a trivial
> amount of incremental work.
>
> I confess I am not super familiar with openstacklib, but I don’t
> understand why "We have to differentiate *common-in-OpenStack* and
> *common-in-our-modules*.”  To me, openstacklib is for _anything_ that’s
> common.  Maybe you could expand upon your thinking on this a little more,
> just so it’s a little more explicit?
>
> Since others are not chomping at the bit to chime in here, I guess there
> is probably not many major preferences on this.  I would be happy with
> getting this done, regardless of how it’s implemented.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

I am strongly for #2. Adding another dependent module adds complexity for
both the operators who have to deploy it and the developers who have to
release it. puppet-openstacklib is already our dumping ground for shared
code, and I don't see why we should be shy of adding new things to it -
"common-in-OpenStack" IS "common-in-our-modules" and that's why
puppet-openstacklib was created.

Colleen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150508/f2282855/attachment.html>