On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Simon Pasquier <spasqu...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> Hello, > You can find the rationale in the review [1] importing m.o.f. into o.t.m. > Basically it was asked by the operators community to avoid the sprawl of > repositories. > BR, > Simon > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248352/ > Thanks Simon, so from "This import will probably lead to the end of monitoring-for-openstack project" it seems that project deletion just was not performed at the end. Is anybody against submitting patch to openstack-infra to delete the project? Regards, Martin > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Martin Magr <mm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Greetings guys, >> >> there is a duplication of code within openstack/osops-tools-monitoring >> and openstack/monitoring-for-openstack projects. >> >> It seems that m-o-f became part of o-t-m, but the former project wasn't >> deleted. I was just wandering if there is a reason for the duplication (or >> fork, considering the projects have different core group maintaining each)? >> >> I'm assuming that m-f-o is just a leftover, so can you guys tell me what >> was the reason to create one project to rule them all (eg. >> openstack/osops-tools-monitoring) instead keeping the small projects >> instead? >> >> Thanks in advance for answer, >> Martin >> >> -- >> Martin Mágr >> Senior Software Engineer >> Red Hat Czech >> > > -- Martin Mágr Senior Software Engineer Red Hat Czech
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
