On Thu, Dec 17 2015, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> Just want to +1 all the above.
>
> It'd be great if we can finally hand the library over to the keystone
> team, where I think it belongs.
While I have nothing against moving oslo.policy to Keystone, I would
like to emphasize that one of the upside for
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Thinking more about it. The only change we'll have is that if someone
> files a oslo-specs for oslo.policy we need to tell them to switch over
> to keystone-specs. We could add notes in README etc to make this
> apparent. So i am +1 to ma
Thinking more about it. The only change we'll have is that if someone
files a oslo-specs for oslo.policy we need to tell them to switch over
to keystone-specs. We could add notes in README etc to make this
apparent. So i am +1 to making this move.
Brant, other keystone cores,
Can you please file t
On 16/12/15 18:51 -0800, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
For what is is worth, we originally proposed oslo.policy to graduate to
Keystone when we were converting to the library. I still think it belongs in
keystone (as long as the oslo team doesn't mind that long-term keystone team
owns something in the o
Le 16/12/2015 20:33, Davanum Srinivas a écrit :
Brant,
I am ok either way, guess the alternative was to add keystone-core
directly to the oslo.policy core group (can't check right now).
The name is very possibly going to create confusion
-- Dims
I heard some people consider that "OpenStack"
For what is is worth, we originally proposed oslo.policy to graduate to
Keystone when we were converting to the library. I still think it belongs
in keystone (as long as the oslo team doesn't mind that long-term keystone
team owns something in the oslo. namespace).
The short term adding keysto
As an interim measure, added keystone-core to oslo-policy-core[1]
Thanks,
Dims
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/556,members
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>> Brant,
>>
>> I am ok either way,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Brant,
>
> I am ok either way, guess the alternative was to add keystone-core
> directly to the oslo.policy core group (can't check right now).
>
That's certainly reasonable, and kind of what we did with pycadf.
>
> The name is very po
Brant,
I am ok either way, guess the alternative was to add keystone-core
directly to the oslo.policy core group (can't check right now).
The name is very possibly going to create confusion
-- Dims
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Jordan Pittier
wrote:
> Hi,
> I am sure oslo.policy would be go
Hi,
I am sure oslo.policy would be good under Keystone's governance. But I am
not sure I understood what's wrong in having oslo.policy under the oslo
program ?
Jordan
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Brant Knudson wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose moving oslo.policy from the oslo program to the
>
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Brant Knudson wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose moving oslo.policy from the oslo program to the
> keystone program. Keystone developers know what's going on with oslo.policy
> and I think are more interested in what's going on with it so that reviews
> will get prop
I'd like to propose moving oslo.policy from the oslo program to the
keystone program. Keystone developers know what's going on with oslo.policy
and I think are more interested in what's going on with it so that reviews
will get proper vetting, and it's not like oslo doesn't have enough going
on wit
12 matches
Mail list logo
