On 08/18/2010 03:33 PM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Ortel"<jor...@redhat.com> To: pulp-list@redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:52:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [Pulp-list] Source Tree Review All, Please review and comment on proposed pulp source tree refactoring as described here: https://fedorahosted.org/pulp/wiki/Architecture#Proposed2. This is pretty close to where we ended up after the meeting but different enough to warrant review before we start refactoring this afternoon. -jeff +1 for server side. My only question is on client. We decided that pulp-client and pulp-admin will be two separate packages. If they are, then part of our core modules need to be shared between the two. Is this refactoring taking that into account? The client side seems pretty much exactly as we have except for renaming pulptool -> client.
Yeah, it's pretty much as pulptools is today.It assumes that common python packages and/or modules will go directly in the pulp.client python package. Can you update the wiki with further changes you see needed?
If thats a different task then rest looks fine. ~ Prad _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
