On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Michał Jastrzębski <inc...@gmail.com> wrote: > TLDR; +1 to have lua in tree of kolla, not sure if we want to switch later > > So I'm not so sure about switching. If these git repos are in > /openstack/ namespace, then sure, otherwise I'd be -1 to this, we > don't want to add dependency here. Also we're looking at pretty simple > set of files that won't change anytime soon probably. Also we might > introduce new service that fuel does not have, and while I'm sure we > can push new file to this repo, it's bigger issue than just coding it > in tree.
I wouldn't think there'd be any opposition to having additional contributed Lua scripts for additional services that Fuel doesn't yet have. It's always easier to commit to one tree, but distinct components like this separated out encourages code sharing (done properly). I did assume that the new repo would be in the OpenStack namespace, but even if it weren't I'd still think a separate repo is best. Sure the files are small, but given the purpose of these files small changes could potentially have a huge impact on the logs. In summary, +1 to temporarily having the Lua scripts in tree until they can be properly migrated to a new repository. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
