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

Reply via email to