openstack team mailing list archive

[Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Andy Smith <andyster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, my previous reply somehow isn't going through to the list... so...
> here it is again:
> I've got some objections so far:
> 1. relying on python-cloudservers is a good metric by which to judge your
> compatibility with the rackspace cloud, once jacob has accepted the changes
> to support changing the auth endpoint. My opinion is that this project
> should be a fork of python-cloudservers with the same name and whose
> intention is not to add additional features at this time.

Why? As much as I like JKM, I don't think relying on someone who has
no interaction with the OpenStack community to accept patches from the
OpenStack community is a good idea.

> 1a. To support your additional features for the very short term you should
> be writing extensions to python-cloudservers (possibly with your minor
> compat modifications) via actual python extension mechanisms (import,
> inherit and extend).

Again, why? With python-novatools we have complete control over the
code and don't need to push it back to python-cloudservers, which is
not OpenStack-based, it's specific to Rackspace Cloud Servers.

> 2. the existing spec for "openstack api 1.1" is still contested, so basing
> the tool chain going forward off of something that is made for compat with
> cloudservers is possibly misguided at this point.

Only if you hamstring it by saying that the changes should be pushed
back upstream.

> 3. i'm not sure there need to be separate tools/libraries to interact with
> each service, but i do like the idea of each being able ot provide a piece
> of a web dashboard.

I'm not sure I understand what #3 has to do with novatools being
separate from python-cloudservers. Could you explain?

-jay

>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Eric Day wrote:
>> > For copyright headers, just add a new "Copyright 2011 OpenStack,
>> > LLC." line for existing files under the old copyright line. You can add
>> > a new license for new code for existing files, but that gets messy. For
>> > new files, just do as we usually do for new files (copyright + license
>> > brief). You can also add new files under a different license (Apache
>> > instead of BSD) if you like, but I'd probably keep it the same within
>> > one project for simplicity. Note that this is only suitable since
>> > it's BSD, if it were GPL (or some other viral license), it would be
>> > a bit different.
>>
>> In fact, the current files do not have any copyright header. Should we
>> invent the copyright line that should have been there, and add to it ?
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>> Release Manager, OpenStack
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>