+0 pulp3 +1 pulpproj -0 pulpproject -0 pulp_platform -1 plp We also need to answer the related question [0] about how the packages are going to be laid out. I'm +1 to having the top level namespace (the name above) contain the subnamespaces i.e. 'platform', 'common', 'streamer', and 'cli'.
[0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2444#Will-all-packages-install-under-a-top-level-directory-or-not -Brian On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhriv...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> It feels like we are approaching a consensus around `pulp3`. I would like >> to take an informal poll using the voting syntax from PUP-1. [0] The other >> questions need to be hashed out a little more. >> >> > > +0 pulp3 > -0 pulpproject > +0 pulpproj > -0 pulp_platform > -1 plp > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev