openstack team mailing list archive

[Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Ewan Mellor <Ewan.Mellor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 03 February 2011 13:40
>> To: Armando Migliaccio
>> Cc: Ewan Mellor; Andy Smith; Rick Clark; Søren Hansen;
>> openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Network Service for L2/L3 Network
>> Infrastructure blueprint
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Armando Migliaccio
>> <Armando.Migliaccio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I second what Ewan said about the coding style in nova.virt.xenapi. I
>> was
>> > responsible for part of refactoring and I am no longer fond of it
>> either. I
>> > still think that it was good to break xenapi.py down as we did, but
>> with
>> > hindsight I would like to revise some of the choices made, and make
>> the code
>> > a bit more Pythonic.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with proposing for merging a branch that does
>> refactoring. It doesn't need to be tied to a bug or blueprint, but if
>> you wait until late in the Cactus cycle, it would have a smaller
>> chance of making it into Cactus since the priority is not refactoring
>> but instead stability and feature parity.
>>
>> So, nothing stopping anyone from proposing refactoring branches.  :)
>
> Absolutely not, as long as we're not trying to merge conflicting branches.  That was the problem last time -- I18N and the logging changes in particular were such pervasive pieces of work that it was hard work merging all the time.  Hopefully we won't see the likes of those again for a little while!

Hehe, understood. I did 6 or 7 merge trunks while dealing with i18n,
so I feel you :)  But, luckily, we don't look to have any of those
super-invasive blueprints on deck for Cactus...but you never know ;)

-jay