On 05/25/2012 04:51 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote: >> That sounds good to me, but it only addresses the short term issue. If the >> plan is to use Node.js for more in the future, we're going to have the same >> conversation when that next patch comes up. > > Heh. That was my point to Thierry about 8 messages ago. ;-) > > I totally agree it's only a short-term solution to work with the distros to > stopgap the CSS files. But I think it does give us this option: > > Speaking just for myself and *my* view of the Horizon Folsom roadmap (Devin > obviously gets more say in this than I do), I think keeping node.js as an > optional (but recommended) dependency for Folsom is doable. That way the > Horizon contributors can then keep developing the features they want to > contribute and believe are important as long as they don't preclude core > functionality without node.js, and it would give downstream distros almost a > year (to the close of the G cycle) to get node.js into their package systems > for production code. > > Just my two cents on this one... my team may kick my a** for it. ;-)
Well, +1 from me. That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise. (My team may attack me for that, too.) -- 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
