On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Andy Smith <andys...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, my previous reply somehow isn't going through to the list... so... > here it is again: > I've got some objections so far: > 1. relying on python-cloudservers is a good metric by which to judge your > compatibility with the rackspace cloud, once jacob has accepted the changes > to support changing the auth endpoint. My opinion is that this project > should be a fork of python-cloudservers with the same name and whose > intention is not to add additional features at this time.
Why? As much as I like JKM, I don't think relying on someone who has no interaction with the OpenStack community to accept patches from the OpenStack community is a good idea. > 1a. To support your additional features for the very short term you should > be writing extensions to python-cloudservers (possibly with your minor > compat modifications) via actual python extension mechanisms (import, > inherit and extend). Again, why? With python-novatools we have complete control over the code and don't need to push it back to python-cloudservers, which is not OpenStack-based, it's specific to Rackspace Cloud Servers. > 2. the existing spec for "openstack api 1.1" is still contested, so basing > the tool chain going forward off of something that is made for compat with > cloudservers is possibly misguided at this point. Only if you hamstring it by saying that the changes should be pushed back upstream. > 3. i'm not sure there need to be separate tools/libraries to interact with > each service, but i do like the idea of each being able ot provide a piece > of a web dashboard. I'm not sure I understand what #3 has to do with novatools being separate from python-cloudservers. Could you explain? -jay > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> > wrote: >> >> Eric Day wrote: >> > For copyright headers, just add a new "Copyright 2011 OpenStack, >> > LLC." line for existing files under the old copyright line. You can add >> > a new license for new code for existing files, but that gets messy. For >> > new files, just do as we usually do for new files (copyright + license >> > brief). You can also add new files under a different license (Apache >> > instead of BSD) if you like, but I'd probably keep it the same within >> > one project for simplicity. Note that this is only suitable since >> > it's BSD, if it were GPL (or some other viral license), it would be >> > a bit different. >> >> In fact, the current files do not have any copyright header. Should we >> invent the copyright line that should have been there, and add to it ? >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> Release Manager, OpenStack >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack >> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
