On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Mike Dorman <mdor...@godaddy.com> wrote:
> +1 I agree we should do this, etc., etc. > > I don’t have a strong preference for #1 or #2, either. But I do think #1 > is slightly more complicated from a deployer/operator perspective. It’s > another module I have to manage, pull in, etc. Granted this is a trivial > amount of incremental work. > > I confess I am not super familiar with openstacklib, but I don’t > understand why "We have to differentiate *common-in-OpenStack* and > *common-in-our-modules*.” To me, openstacklib is for _anything_ that’s > common. Maybe you could expand upon your thinking on this a little more, > just so it’s a little more explicit? > > Since others are not chomping at the bit to chime in here, I guess there > is probably not many major preferences on this. I would be happy with > getting this done, regardless of how it’s implemented. > > Thanks, > Mike I am strongly for #2. Adding another dependent module adds complexity for both the operators who have to deploy it and the developers who have to release it. puppet-openstacklib is already our dumping ground for shared code, and I don't see why we should be shy of adding new things to it - "common-in-OpenStack" IS "common-in-our-modules" and that's why puppet-openstacklib was created. Colleen
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
