Hi folks, For a some time in python-fuelclient we have two CLI apps: `fuel` and `fuel2`. It was done as an implementation of blueprint [1]. Right now there is a situation where some new features are added just to old `fuel`, some to just `fuel2`, some to both. We cannot simply switch completely to new `fuel2` as it doesn't cover all old commands. As far as I remember there was no agreement how we should proceed with adding new things to python-fuelclient, so to keep all development for new commands I would like us to choose what will be our approach. There are 3 ways to do it (with some pros and cons):
A) Add new features only to old `fuel`. Pros: - Implement feature in one place - Almost all features are covered there Cons: - Someone will need to port this features to new `fuel2` - Issues that forced us to reimplement whole `fuel` as `fuel2` B) Add new features only to new `fuel2` Pros: - Implement feature in one place - No need to cope with issues in old `fuel` (like worse UX, etc.) Cons: - Not all features are covered by `fuel2` so user will need to switch between `fuel` and `fuel2` C) Add new features to both CLIs Pros: - User can choose which tool to use - No need to port feature later... Cons: - ...but it still doubles the work - We keep alive a tool that should be replaced (old `fuel`) Best, Sebastian [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/re-thinking-fuel-client
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
