On Fri, Jul 29, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: > As I noted in the meeting yesterday, I think the lack of response from > TripleO regarding this topic is kind of answer enough. TripleO has > moved away from having a heavy dependency on diskimage-builder (it's > basically used to install some packages and a handful of elements that > we haven't been able to replace yet), so I don't see a problem with > moving dib out of TripleO, as long as we still have some TripleO folks > on the core team and tripleo-ci continues to test all changes against > it. We still care about keeping dib working, but the motivation from > the TripleO side to do feature development in dib is pretty nonexistent > at this point, so if a new team wants to take that on then I'm good with > it. > > Note that the diskimage-builder core team has always been separate from > the tripleo-core team, so ultimately I guess this would just be a > governance change? >
Awesome, that is what I hoped/expected and why I figured this was a reasonable move to make. It's good to hear some confirmation. The cores thing is a bit tricky - there is a separate diskimage-builder-core group but tripleo-core is a member of diskimage-builder core. I think tripleo-core should get moved out from being diskimage-builder-core but there's some folks who are not in diskimage-builder-core that are in tripleo-core and are active in DIB. Maybe we can take all tripleo-core folk who have done 2 or more reviews this past cycle and add them to diskimage-builder-core? Cheers, Greg __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
