On 05/24/2012 07:28 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Sure I agree with what u said, its a balance... > > But it worries me when a commit pops up that I had to basically find, > and then I get a reply from russell who works at RH that says nope > fedora doesn’t have it. > > It seems like that reach u mentioned, wasn’t occurring, idk, maybe that > is the process, just more of notifying people/companies... > > Something seems broken if that can happen. I agree its early, but why > was it problem in the first place?
Well, I think you are witnessing it happening. We now know about it. It's early enough in the release cycle that hopefully we can react and make it not be a problem by the time Folsom comes around. In this particular case, it's a pretty big dependency. It's not just a simple Python library to package up ... but I do agree with Devin that upstream shouldn't hold back because of it, as long as the more invasive changes like this are made as early as possible in the release cycle. We'll look into the state of affairs for getting Node.js packaged. Pádraig Brady also has an interesting question/suggestion for this particular issue on the code review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7367/ "node is a big dependency just for lesscss. I wonder could this feature be tweaked to give a configuration option to run lesscss on the client? That might be desired to reduce load on the server, or to ease the installation burden due to node not being easily available for all platforms at present." That would sure save us a lot of headaches if we could make that work. :-) -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
