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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 20 Aug 2014, at 18:14, Nikolay Markov <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > > > > > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
