On 12/06/15 13:45 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 06/12/2015 01:31 PM, Dirk Müller wrote:If instead it seems the differences are minor enough that combining efforts is a win for everyone, then that's even better, but I don't see it as the required outcome here personally.Right. We've started with an open discussion and not started with any of those two outcomes in mind already. I think thats also why we agreed to start with a "green field" and not seed the repos with any of the distro's existing spec files. To me it looks promising that we can mechanically compile the $distro policy conformant .spec file from the canonical upstream naming, and at some point that compile step might end up being a "cp".Yikes ... having to start green field and drop history from the last several years seems quite unfortunate. It kind of sounds like "too much work to be worth it" to me, but I'm just on the sidelines here. Anyway, my main objective was just to make sure nobody felt like combining efforts was the only acceptable outcome. I'm happy with whatever you all end up deciding is most helpful overall.
Just wanted to add that I agree with Russell's comments on this topic. I'm a happy observer of this effort but I'd love you all to amke the best decision for these projects and it seems you're working towards that. Cheers, Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpOiligp32cC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
