On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Eric Windisch <e...@cloudscaling.com> wrote:
> I don't think it is a problem to remove the code in oslo first, as > long as no other oslo-incubator code uses it. Projects don't have to > sync the code and could always revert should that they do. I strongly disagree. It stops projects from syncing with oslo until they go through the code churn to remove the method. > However, like Mark, I'm inclined to consider the value of > is_uuid_like. While undoubtedly useful, is one method sufficient to > warrant creating a new top-level module. Waiting for it to hit the > standard library will take quite a long time... > > There are other components of oslo that are terse and questionable as > standalone libraries. For these, it might make sense to aggressively > consider rolling some modules together? > > One clear example would be log.py and log_handler.py, another would be > periodic_task.py and loopingcall.py I'm not sure I see the harm in leaving small but widely used modules in oslo incubator. If we really want to release everything as a library, can't we just have a generic catchall one for the small things? oslo.therest perhaps? Michael -- Rackspace Australia _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
