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 <[email protected]> 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 : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
