Mike, Yes, probably the best place to describe further plans is README file. I'll create a patch.
Vladimir Kozhukalov On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Mike Scherbakov <mscherba...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Vladimir, > if you've been behind of this, could you please share further plans in > separate email thread or (better) provide plans in README in the repo, so > everyone can be aware of planned changes and can review them too? If you or > someone else propose a change, please post a link here... > > Thanks, > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:27 AM Vladimir Kozhukalov < > vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Thomas, >> >> You are right about two independent modules in the repo. That is because >> the former intention was to get rid of fuel-mirror (and fuel-createmirror) >> and perestroika and leave only packetary there. Packetary is to be >> developed so it is able to build not only repositories but packages as >> well. So we'll be able to remove perestroika once it is ready. Two major >> capabilities of fuel-mirror are: >> 1) create mirror (and partial mirror) and packetary can be used for this >> instead >> 2) apply mirror to nailgun (which is rather a matter of python-fuelclient) >> So fuel-mirror also should be removed in the future to avoid >> functionality duplication. >> >> Those were the reasons not to put them separately. (C) "There can be only >> one". >> >> >> >> >> >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: >> >>> On 12/01/2015 09:25 AM, Mike Scherbakov wrote: >>> > 4. I don't quite understand how repo is organized. I see a lot of >>> > Python code regarding to fuel-mirror itself and packetary, which is >>> > used as fuel-mirrors core and being written and maintained mostly >>> by >>> > Bulat [5]. There are seem to be bash scripts now related to >>> > Perestroika, and. I don't quite get how these things relate each to >>> > other, and if we expect core reviewers to be merging code into both >>> > Perestroika and Packetary? Unless mission of repo, code gets clear, >>> > I'd abstain from giving +1... >>> >>> Also, why isn't packetary living in its own repository? It seems wrong >>> to me to have 2 python modules living in the same source repo, unless >>> they share the same egg-info. It feels weird to have to call setup.py >>> install twice in the resulting Debian source package. That's not how >>> things are done elsewhere, and I'd like to avoid special cases, just >>> because it's fuel... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Thomas Goirand (zigo) >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > -- > Mike Scherbakov > #mihgen > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
