It is something different from what I see.
Repos can be called fuel-dev-utils and fuel-vagrant-dev.
P.
On 03/19/2015 09:43 PM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
we already have a package with the name fuel-utils please see [1]. I
-1'd the CR over it.
[1]
Hello,
Some time ago I wrote some small tools that make Fuel development easier
and it was suggested to add info about them to the documentation --
here's the review link [1].
Evgenyi Li correctly pointed out that we already have something like
fuel_development already in fuel-web. I think
+1 -- there is no point for commiting that review with external urls if
those repos are to be created in stackforge.
P.
On 03/19/2015 03:02 PM, Evgeniy L wrote:
Hi folks,
I agree, lets create separate repo with its own cores and remove
fuel_development from fuel-web.
But in this case I'm
+1 for moving fuel_development into separate repo.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I agree, lets create separate repo with its own cores and remove
fuel_development from fuel-web.
But in this case I'm not sure if we should merge the patch which
Hi folks,
I agree, lets create separate repo with its own cores and remove
fuel_development from fuel-web.
But in this case I'm not sure if we should merge the patch which
has links to non-stackforge repositories, because location is going
to be changed soon.
Also it will be cool to publish it
As I wrote in the review already: I like the idea of merging
those two tools and making a separate repository. After that
we could make they more visible in our documentation and wiki
so they could benefit from being used by broader audience.
Same for vagrant configuration - if it's useful (and
we already have a package with the name fuel-utils please see [1]. I
-1'd the CR over it.
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059206.html
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Alexander Kislitsky
akislit...@mirantis.com wrote:
+1 for moving fuel_development into
