On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@yahoo-inc.com>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). > Right. Taskflow is new work and with an existing development team and without any dependencies on the rest of Oslo, so I don't think it needs to go through the Oslo processes. Josh and I agreed it should just live on stackforge. Doug > > 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
