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 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 >> has links to non-stackforge repositories, because location is going >> to be changed soon. >> >> Also it will be cool to publish it on pypi. >> >> Thanks, >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski >> <skalinow...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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 it is >>> since newcomers are using them) we could at least move under >>> Mirantis organization on Github. >>> >>> Best, >>> Seabastian >>> >>> >>> 2015-03-19 13:49 GMT+01:00 Przemyslaw Kaminski <pkamin...@mirantis.com>: >>>> >>>> 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 though that we shouldn't >>>> mix such stuff directly into fuel-web, I mean we recently migrated CLI >>>> to a separate repo to make fuel-web thinner. >>>> >>>> So a suggestion -- maybe make these tools more official and create >>>> stackforge repos for them? I think dev ecosystem could benefit by having >>>> some standard way of dealing with the ISO (for example we get questions >>>> from people how to apply new openstack.yaml config to the DB). >>>> >>>> At the same time we could get rid of fuel_development and merge that >>>> into the new repos (it has the useful 'revert' functionality that I >>>> didn't think of :)) >>>> >>>> P. >>>> >>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140355/9/docs/develop/env.rst >>>> >>>> >>>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>>> Unsubscribe: >>>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: >>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Andrew Mirantis Fuel community ambassador Ceph community __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
