Mike,
You are absolutely right about our current priorities for 6.1 and this
thread is not about immediate action.
But just to be fair, moving Fuel Client to a separate repo was a priori
much more complicated procedure because it is tested together with nailgun.
For Fuel Agent we just need to
-1 to make changes now
+1 to Alexandra
Let's finish fuel-client first. Also, it is about prioritization. We have
many things to be resolved in 6.1 (e.g. package the rest of the stuff which
not yet packaged into RPM/DEB; split repos openstack/fuel/linux, etc.), and
fuel agent in particular has
It seems that we have general agreement about the idea, but to make it
happen we need much more detailed proposal.
Even with python-fuelclient it is not quite clear right now, which version
of nailgun should be used to test it, and the opposite: which version of
fuelclient we have to use in iso
+1 I'm all for separating it.
2015-01-26 17:52 GMT+01:00 Alexander Gordeev agord...@mirantis.com:
Hello Vladimir,
totally +1 for separating Fuel Agent out of fuel-web.
what will happen with fuel_agent_ci ?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov
vkozhuka...@mirantis.com
Hello Vladimir,
totally +1 for separating Fuel Agent out of fuel-web.
what will happen with fuel_agent_ci ?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov
vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote:
Fuelers,
As most of you might know we have a bunch of projects inside fuel-web repo
which are not
Vladimir,
As a fuel-separatist I give this initiative a big +1 because of the following
advantages I can see:
- Git is designed for keeping smaller single-compoent repos, keeping
everything to one repo is a discouraged pattern
- Having a separate -core group that will only contain active
I think the idea is not to work on it right at this moment but to accept the
general idea of fuel-agent being moved somewhere it can be alone. I’m not sure
there is one single approach for separating a component from the common
repository because each of them has their own use-cases and
