Vladimir, if you've been behind of this, could you please share further plans in separate email thread or (better) provide plans in README in the repo, so everyone can be aware of planned changes and can review them too? If you or someone else propose a change, please post a link here...
Thanks, On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:27 AM Vladimir Kozhukalov <vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Thomas, > > You are right about two independent modules in the repo. That is because > the former intention was to get rid of fuel-mirror (and fuel-createmirror) > and perestroika and leave only packetary there. Packetary is to be > developed so it is able to build not only repositories but packages as > well. So we'll be able to remove perestroika once it is ready. Two major > capabilities of fuel-mirror are: > 1) create mirror (and partial mirror) and packetary can be used for this > instead > 2) apply mirror to nailgun (which is rather a matter of python-fuelclient) > So fuel-mirror also should be removed in the future to avoid functionality > duplication. > > Those were the reasons not to put them separately. (C) "There can be only > one". > > > > > > Vladimir Kozhukalov > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: > >> On 12/01/2015 09:25 AM, Mike Scherbakov wrote: >> > 4. I don't quite understand how repo is organized. I see a lot of >> > Python code regarding to fuel-mirror itself and packetary, which is >> > used as fuel-mirrors core and being written and maintained mostly by >> > Bulat [5]. There are seem to be bash scripts now related to >> > Perestroika, and. I don't quite get how these things relate each to >> > other, and if we expect core reviewers to be merging code into both >> > Perestroika and Packetary? Unless mission of repo, code gets clear, >> > I'd abstain from giving +1... >> >> Also, why isn't packetary living in its own repository? It seems wrong >> to me to have 2 python modules living in the same source repo, unless >> they share the same egg-info. It feels weird to have to call setup.py >> install twice in the resulting Debian source package. That's not how >> things are done elsewhere, and I'd like to avoid special cases, just >> because it's fuel... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Thomas Goirand (zigo) >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@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-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
