Seth Vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 15:56 -0400, Mairin Duffy wrote:
It seems there are two topics here, of which I am most interested in the
second
(A) Making a new web app, possibly to be included with and/or replace
parts of Spacewalk
(B) Adding some repo management features that Cobbler can't do yet ...
whether that be in cobbler or otherwise
Breaking it down this away upon further examination doesn't make sense
to me. A is saying the new web app will possibly be included with or
replace parts of Spacewalk essentially means it will be included with or
replace parts of cobbler because cobbler is being added to spacewalk. B
is saying that the pulp-like things sans interface should be added to
cobbler, which is the same as adding them to spacewalk because cobbler
is being added to spacewalk, except the entire idea of a UI is left out.
So A appears to equal B, except B does not have a UI for repo
management, or is hooking cobbler up to spacewalk's existing 'repo
management' UI. The limitations of spacewalk's existing repo management
UI and underlying system is the whole reason pulp was proposed in the
first place. :)
I prefer to think about this in terms of user problems to solve, not
project names / code bases / backends vs. UI.
I've been following this thread and trying to make sure I understand
where the sides of this discussion are coming from.
After reading everything it seems like something isn't being said which
might be fairly useful to say.
Before I say it though I'd like to note that I don't have a dog in this
fight. :)
It seems like cobbler has functioning code and a good-sized userbase.
Active development. Pulp otoh has some ideas and some structure but not
a lot of functioning code to backup those ideas. It seems like Michael
is suggesting we take the feature set that pulp wants to achieve and
implement it as a mode/interface/etc of cobbler. Essentially, folding
pulp into cobbler.
I'll be honest it sounds like a fair idea. There's going to be a fair
bit of overlapping code b/t pulp and cobbler anyway - and it would get
more exposure to the feature ideas from pulp if people could get to them
in cobbler. Since I know of many, many, many existing cobbler installs.
While I appreciate it not mattering what code stuff lives in - from a
user and 'marketing' standpoint it does matter.
If I've already got cobbler setup I want to see the new bits added
there not have to setup something somewhat overlapping but different.
So, to encourage and expand the userbase that both projects are
ultimately targeting. Why not join forces, converge under the cobbler
code base and scm and move up from there?
If I dare say it - it sure seems like good synergy! :)
But in all seriousness it does seem like a good place to collaborate
well that helps get pulp's ideas into production and helps the existing
users of cobbler.
am I really offbase here?
-sv
I think this is exactly what I was saying, and more clearly said.
--Michael
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
