On Oct 8, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > >> On 8 October 2014 11:10, Mike Bayer <mba...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Hi folks - >>> >>> So just to update on the status here, for the transactional testing and all >>> that, I’ve had a blueprint in the queue for quite awhile: >> >> ... >> >> I'll probably time it out upstream if I can't get a review and just >> drop it straight into testtools. That said, I'm still AWL from >> everything dealing with this personal matter. Once thats resolved I'll >> be full steam on unblocking things for this patch set of yours. >> >> If you want to move forward without me - backporting the fixes to >> testtools would be a good start, jml or thomi or jelmer (amongst >> others) can review and land and do a release - I'm not critical path. > > I know you put together a PoC (maybe more) showing how to make this work for > namespace packages. I wonder if this is just another example of a reason to > stop using them, though? > > Does it make sense to move ahead with separate test suite instances and come > back to unify that when we resolve the package issue? As an experiment, I put together a patch for oslo.i18n that moves it out of the namespace package while still retaining the ability to import from the namespace package (say that 10 times fast). https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127323/ Doug _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
