Hi Li,
Sorry for the late reply. Unrelated point: please note that we've
moved the mailing lists to Openstack infra
(openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org - I'm ccing the list here).
At the moment we don't support syncing the full Neutron DB, there has
been work done for this that would allow this u
On 10 December 2015 at 04:35, Sandro Mathys wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Galo Navarro wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> I think the goal of this split is well explained by Sandro in the first
> >> mails of the chain:
> >>
> >> 1. Downstream
Hi,
> I think the goal of this split is well explained by Sandro in the first
> mails of the chain:
>
> 1. Downstream packaging
> 2. Tagging the delivery properly as a library
> 3. Adding as a project on pypi
Not really, because (1) and (2) are *a consequence* of the repo split. Not
a cause. Plea
>> Ditto. We already have a mirror repo of pyc for this purpose
>> https://github.com/midonet/python-midonetclient, synced daily.
>
> Some of the problems with that is that it does not have any git log history
> nor does it feel like a coding project at all.
Of course, because the goal of this rep
Hi Sandro,
>> 1) (Downstream) packaging: midonet and python-midonetclient are two
>> distinct packages, and therefore should have distinct upstream
>> tarballs - which are compiled on a per repo basis.
This is actually not accurate: there is no such thing as a midonet
package. The midonet repo pr
