But it can be in separate rpm, in separate git repository. What's the benefit to move it into CloudStack repository?
Sent from my iPhone On Oct 8, 2012, at 11:08 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on different thread. I do not agree that it is unrelated/unimportant. > Many users rely on it and hence it was integrated into the same deployment. > > On 10/8/12 11:04 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 09-Oct-2012, at 11:11 AM, Edison Su <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Oct 8, 2012, at 8:01 PM, "Chip Childers" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Alex Huang <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> Two things: >>>>>> >>>>>> How about Wido's remark about us not packaging for Debian? >>>>> >>>>> That one is a new one. Wido said he will work on it. >>>>> >>>>> However, I think the last few days has shown that awsapi is not ready >>>>> to be released for 4.0. It's obviously the last thing being tested >>>>> and it still has problem after a few days of work to package it. It's >>>>> completely optional to CloudStack. How about we treat it as a feature >>>>> that did not make the release and exclude it for 4.0? >>>> >>>> I think that would be very disappointing to our users. At a bare >>>> minimum, I'd like to see us get it functional for 4.0. If we need to >>>> mark it as "experimental" due to it's migration into the core >>>> CloudStack project, then perhaps that is an option. >>> >>> If i could, I would like to move cloudbridge into a separate >>> repository. Cloudbridge and CloudStack are totally independent projects, >>> they may have different release schedule. We spend so many time on how >>> to get awsapi passed ASF license check, on how to get it work with >>> maven. Is it worth to spend so much efforts on something not important >>> to CloudStack itself? >> >> Who uses Cloudbridge? Let's start a new thread, it's a whole different >> topic. >> >> Regards. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And Frank noted that there are some steps that need to be documented. >>>>>> Do we have a bug opened for the DOC team on them? >>>>> >>>>> That line is only needed for systems at scale so it's not a hard >>>>> requirement on the system. I see that both David and I added a bug >>>>> for this. We should just track it as that bug. >>>>> >>>>> --Alex >>>>> >> >
