Sounds good, Will do when I get back from HK, still here exploring :-)
Sent from my really tiny device... > On Nov 11, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "Monty Taylor" <mord...@inaugust.com> wrote: > > Ok. Cool. Let's just put an upper bound on it for now then (mainly > because it's listed as 0.1, so that version to me suggests that it might > still have breaking API churn) > >> On 11/11/2013 07:53 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote: >> I can put an upper bound on the version, that's fine with me. I'd rather not >> avoid adding taskflow to wait until some new preemptive gating process is in >> place. That doesn't exactly feel fair to the people creating taskflow or the >> people using it, especially since people are integrating it at this moment >> and it would be sad for their work to be lost due to a requirement line. >> >> As for part of oslo, cc'ing Doug since from my talks with him seem to be >> that it's just a library and to encourage the growth of useful libraries the >> red tape isn't needed (aka, taskflow has no strong ties to oslo and I'm not >> sure it should). >> >> Sent from my really tiny device... >> >>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 7:33 PM, "Monty Taylor" <mord...@inaugust.com> wrote: >>> >>> There is a change up to add taskflow to the global requirements. I have >>> no problem with this in principle, but it's one more that's in the set >>> of things like pecan, wsme and friends that are in the set of things >>> that Sean talked about in preemptively gate the universe. >>> >>> I'd like to not add it until we have a plan for at least assymetrical >>> gating, so that changes to taskflow at least can't break cinder and friends. >>> >>> Further, I think we might need to discuss how to include libraries such >>> as this. Should taskflow be a part of oslo? >> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
