On 01/03/2014 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Ok, I think I'm fine with that (although not really sure what that
entails).
What does the living under the 'oslo program' change?
Does that entail getting sucked into the incubator (which seems to be what
your graduating link is about).
I don't think its a good idea for taskflow to be in the 'incubator'.
Taskflow is meant to be just like any other 3rd party library.
I didn't mean the incubator, I meant like oslo.* libs that we've spun
out already.
Or were u mainly referring to the 'devstack-gate integration' section?
Correct. Just to understand what the libs live under. Basically taskflow
is getting deeply integrated into projects in the same way oslo.* libs
are, and as such, given it has non trivial requirements of it's own, we
have to treat it like all the other OpenStack components and
symmetrically gate on it.
That will guaruntee you can't release a taskflow library that can break
OpenStack, because we'll be testing every commit, which is goodness.
I'd be interested in hearing dougs opinion here (cc'd him) as
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-oslo-splitting-the-incubator
would seem to cause even more of these types of new 3rd party libraries to
appear on pypi (and therefore causing similar issues of transitive
dependencies as taskflow).
Will bug u on #openstack-infra soon :-)
Definitely think doug should weigh in as well.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
Samsung Research America
s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com
http://dague.net
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
