On Wednesday, December 4, 2013, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 04/12/13 01:13 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
>
>> Jay is right. What we have is probably close enough to what's in Nova to
>> qualify for oslo-incubator. The simplifications seem to me to have general
>> appeal so this code would be more attra
On 04/12/13 01:13 +, Adrian Otto wrote:
Jay is right. What we have is probably close enough to what's in Nova to
qualify for oslo-incubator. The simplifications seem to me to have general
appeal so this code would be more attractive to other projects. One worry I
have is that there is stil
Jay is right. What we have is probably close enough to what's in Nova to
qualify for oslo-incubator. The simplifications seem to me to have general
appeal so this code would be more attractive to other projects. One worry I
have is that there is still a good deal of magic behavior in this code,
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:44 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Sure sure, let me not make that assumption (can't speak for them), but
> even libraries on pypi have to deal with API instability.
Yes, they do ... either by my maintaining stability, bumping their major
version number to reflect an incompa
Sure sure, let me not make that assumption (can't speak for them), but
even libraries on pypi have to deal with API instability.
Just more of suggesting, might as well bite the bullet (if objects folks
feel ok with this) and just learn to deal with the pypi method for dealing
with API instability
On 12/03/2013 05:30 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 10:42 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
Hey - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57022/7//COMMIT_MSG - I
strongly suggested here that reusing the Nova object code is the first
step towards an objects library, and that we should be put
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:31 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Sure, no one has said it. But it seems to be implied, otherwise these
> types of discussions wouldn't occur. Right?
You're assuming the Nova objects API is at a point where the maintainers
of it feel ready to commit to API stability.
Mark.
Sure, no one has said it. But it seems to be implied, otherwise these
types of discussions wouldn't occur. Right?
On 12/3/13 2:25 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" wrote:
>On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>
>> Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo.
>
>It's been rei
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 10:42 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> Hey - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57022/7//COMMIT_MSG - I
> strongly suggested here that reusing the Nova object code is the first
> step towards an objects library, and that we should be putting it in
> olso; there are some reasonable
On 12/03/2013 05:15 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Robert,
I believe some code is in Ironic too [1]. The 2 choices are in Oslo are:
1) copy code to oslo-incubator
2) start a new oslo.objects(?) repo
In the summit meeting, we have been trying to break existing code into
libraries so #1 is probably
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo.
It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose of
oslo-incubator is as a place to evolve an API until we're ready to make
a commitment to API stability.
It's often
Robert,
I believe some code is in Ironic too [1]. The 2 choices are in Oslo are:
1) copy code to oslo-incubator
2) start a new oslo.objects(?) repo
In the summit meeting, we have been trying to break existing code into
libraries so #1 is probably counter-productive. If the code churn in
the file
Why not just make it a pypi party library from the start?
Call it 'super-objects' or something. Why does it have to be connected to
oslo.incubator?
Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo.
Why not just go straight to building a library (does it matter if it's in
oslo?) that is
Hey - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57022/7//COMMIT_MSG - I
strongly suggested here that reusing the Nova object code is the first
step towards an objects library, and that we should be putting it in
olso; there are some reasonable concerns about this being experimental
but...
The Oslo wiki pag
14 matches
Mail list logo
