On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 16:22 -0400, Mairin Duffy wrote: > So now I feel like we've come back in a circle, and what has proven to > be a losing strategy (fixing what's already in spacewalk) is again back > on the table. > > Does that make more sense, put that way? > > > 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. > > Sans UI. :( > > > am I really offbase here? > > I don't think so and thanks for the fresh perspective. I think you > helped me realized that my main issue is with the UI bits 'living' in > spacewalk, because I've been there for, again, four years trying to make > that happen!
okay, I think I know what happened here - reading through the archives again. Michael was trying to not say 'why don't we fold pulp into cobbler' that he never actually said that. I think he wants the ui work from pulp to be implemented in cobbler. On the cobbler wiki it has: https://fedorahosted.org/cobbler/wiki/TheRoadmap under one of them it talks about the webui work that's needed. I think the goal would look something like: - put all of the pulp ui plans in here. So I don't think it would mean sans-ui at all. I think michael is saying his ui-fu is limited and that if the people who are working on pulp want to work on the pulpui w/o having to deal with implementing the backend parts - they should come to cobbler, implement it there - and then the users magically get the bits w/o having to have to separate backend implementations that may or may not match up in all ways. Does that jive? -sv _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
