On 2/5/16, 1:14 AM, "Eric LEMOINE" <elemo...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Peeler <jpee...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Michał Jastrzębski <inc...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >>> TLDR; +1 to have lua in tree of kolla, not sure if we want to switch >>>later >>> >>> So I'm not so sure about switching. If these git repos are in >>> /openstack/ namespace, then sure, otherwise I'd be -1 to this, we >>> don't want to add dependency here. Also we're looking at pretty simple >>> set of files that won't change anytime soon probably. Also we might >>> introduce new service that fuel does not have, and while I'm sure we >>> can push new file to this repo, it's bigger issue than just coding it >>> in tree. >> >> I wouldn't think there'd be any opposition to having additional >> contributed Lua scripts for additional services that Fuel doesn't yet >> have. It's always easier to commit to one tree, but distinct >> components like this separated out encourages code sharing (done >> properly). I did assume that the new repo would be in the OpenStack >> namespace, but even if it weren't I'd still think a separate repo is >> best. Sure the files are small, but given the purpose of these files >> small changes could potentially have a huge impact on the logs. >> >> In summary, +1 to temporarily having the Lua scripts in tree until >> they can be properly migrated to a new repository. > > >I totally agree with you Jeff. > >It is to be noted that we (my team at Mirantis) want to avoid >duplicating our Lua plugins, as we obviously don't want to maintain >two sets of identical plugins. So there are mulitple reasons for >creating separate packages for these plugins: a) make it easy the >share the plugins across different projects, b) avoid maintaining >multiple sets of identical plugins, and c) avoid clobbering Kolla with >code not directly related to Kolla - for example, would you really >like to see Lua tests in Kolla and run Lua tests in the Kolla gates? >It would indeed be best to have these plugins in the OpenStack Git >namespace (as Steve Dake said), but we will have to see if that's >possible in practice. > >Thank you all for your responses. Eric, If I read that correctly, there is some implied resistance to placing these LUA plugins in the openstack git namespace. Could you enumerate the issues now please? If they aren't going in the OpenStack git namespace, I will have to clear that with the Technical Committee. The reason TC clearance would be needed involves (I think) the bylaws of the OpenStack Foundation. We would be breaking new ground here with the proposal of not including these removed-from-kolla repo in the OpenStack git namespace. Thanks! -steve > >__________________________________________________________________________ >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
