fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Matthew Mosesohn <mmosesohn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Vitaly,

YAML aligns with the format we use for supplying data to Fuel
everywhere, so yes it's good.

I was thinking it would be great for a toolset for our 3rd party
developers to add/modify base release fields by simply placing .yaml
files in a specified directory. The end result would be a merged YAML,
including whatever interface dialogs and parameters for deployment are
necessary. Is this part of your vision for improving our
openstack.json file?

Best Regards,
Matthew Mosesohn

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh
<vkramskikh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I've been working on rewrite of our release description file to use YAML. It
> will improve readability and allow us to remove lots of duplicate code:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61720/4/nailgun/nailgun/fixtures/openstack.yaml
>
> I defined two "abstract" releases: "base" and "full" and inherited our
> actual releases from them. Inheritance is done by recursive dicts merge, so
> we can move lots of stuff to "base" or "full" release (except of volumes
> which are done using list, so we have to copy the whole list; I think it is
> possible to reimplement them using dicts later).
>
> What do you guys think? Would you prefer to switch to YAML format?
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
> Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>