On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote: > > Honestly, if we are going to track this, we should probably do the set > > of things that reviewers tend to do when running through these. > > > > License: > > Upstream Location: > > Ubuntu/Debian Package: Y/N? (url) > > Fedora Package: Y/N? (url) > > Suse Package: Y/N? (url) > > Last Release: Date (in case of abandonware) > > Python 3 support: Y/N? (informational only) > > > > I'd honestly stick that in a yaml file instead, and have something > > sanity check it on new requirements add. > > Licensing is the only legally-binding issue at stake, the rest are > technically-binding issues that we consider when we accept or reject a > new dependency. I'm not saying there is no value in tracking that extra > information, just saying that we really need to track licensing. I don't > want perfection to get in the way of making baby steps towards making > things better. > > Tracking licensing is a good first step, and having full licensing > coverage will take some time. We shouldn't block on YAML conversion or > full technical information... As a first step let's just accept patches > that mention licensing information in trailing comments, then if someone > wants to convert the requirements files to YAML so that they can contain > more information, great! > I added a note about this to the review criteria list [1]. Doug [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Requirements#Review_Criteria > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev