fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Mike Scherbakov <mscherbakov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick,
if you've got a time for it - I would love to see more formal approach to
the analysis. We know our requirements for Fuel already (we do, right?)),
so I believe we could have a comparison table, with features we need in
rows and frameworks in columns.
You mentioned some of the features already, such as PATCH, application/json
type without monkey-patching, etc.

If we follow this way and collaboratively feel up such a table, there will
be no question what to take when it comes to finally choose framework and
start development.


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Tomasz Napierala <tnapierala@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
> On 20 Aug 2014, at 18:14, Nikolay Markov <nmarkov@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Lukasz,
> >
> > I did try this configuration and it was hell. I shared my experience in
> previous letters in this thread. Please don't hesitate to share your
> experience If you have some other thoughts.
> >
> > The thing is, we won't really have much time after 5.1 and before 6.0,
> so all big-size decisions should be done as early as possible.
>
> I agree that it might be too late after release. So maybe we should wait
> until after HCF - most people will have some spare time to do research /
> familiarize themselves with various frameworks. What do you think about it?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Tomasz Napierala
> Sr. OpenStack Engineer
> tnapierala@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Mike Scherbakov
#mihgen