Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Moving some projects around
James E. Blair wrote: We've been discussing the thoroughly interesting problem of project taxonomy recently, and I'd like to describe what I think we've mostly decided we should do and make sure we're on the same page. If we are, I'll invite the TC to weigh in and if they think we're completely wrong, we can work on some policy. Move the following projects to the openstack-attic/ org (because they are no longer active projects though they had some degree of officialness about them at the time they were active): * openstack-dev/openstack-qa * openstack/melange * openstack/python-melangeclient * openstack/openstack-chef We should make these read-only as well. Leave openstack-dev/sandbox where it is. It's a useful tool for new openstack developers and third party CI systems -- it should be considered part of the openstack development process. OK Move openstack/python-openstackclient to stackforge. It's apparently a project without an official program. (Incidentally, this makes me sad.) Leave openstack/gantt where it is, but make it read-only. The current state of development is considered a dead end, but there is likely to be a future attempt (and therefore future openstack/gantt repository). Rather than rename it and rename it back, or rename it to something like openstack-attic/gant-mark-one, we think mothballing it and then replacing the entire branch with a merge commit for the second forklift attempt (like we did with keystone-lite) is the least silly option and actually faithfully represents development history. On one hand I think openstack/python-openstackclient could temporarily be left where it is until we have a clear idea of what its future is. On the other moving it to stackforge could release enough energy for a proper program request to be submitted. It's not a quick and easy discussion though: there are competing approaches, the question of whether all client libraries should also live under that program, and the question of whether it should be lumped in a bigger end-user UX program. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Moving some projects around
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: James E. Blair wrote: We've been discussing the thoroughly interesting problem of project taxonomy recently, and I'd like to describe what I think we've mostly decided we should do and make sure we're on the same page. If we are, I'll invite the TC to weigh in and if they think we're completely wrong, we can work on some policy. Move the following projects to the openstack-attic/ org (because they are no longer active projects though they had some degree of officialness about them at the time they were active): * openstack-dev/openstack-qa * openstack/melange * openstack/python-melangeclient * openstack/openstack-chef We should make these read-only as well. Leave openstack-dev/sandbox where it is. It's a useful tool for new openstack developers and third party CI systems -- it should be considered part of the openstack development process. OK Move openstack/python-openstackclient to stackforge. It's apparently a project without an official program. (Incidentally, this makes me sad.) Leave openstack/gantt where it is, but make it read-only. The current state of development is considered a dead end, but there is likely to be a future attempt (and therefore future openstack/gantt repository). Rather than rename it and rename it back, or rename it to something like openstack-attic/gant-mark-one, we think mothballing it and then replacing the entire branch with a merge commit for the second forklift attempt (like we did with keystone-lite) is the least silly option and actually faithfully represents development history. On one hand I think openstack/python-openstackclient could temporarily be left where it is until we have a clear idea of what its future is. On the other moving it to stackforge could release enough energy for a proper program request to be submitted. It's not a quick and easy discussion though: there are competing approaches, the question of whether all client libraries should also live under that program, and the question of whether it should be lumped in a bigger end-user UX program. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) During the last couple of months we significantly reduced number of Murano repositories. We will mark the following repos as deprecated: * stackforge/murano-common * stackforge/murano-repository * stackforge/murano-metadataclient * stackforge/murano-conductor Two or three more repositories will be deprecated a little bit later. Murano is not the only project which has deprecated repositories. There are several abandoned repositories, for instance MRaaS [0]. Maybe it's about time to create something similar to Apache Attic [1] and move these repos outside of Stackforge? [0] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/MRaaS/ [1] https://attic.apache.org/ -- Ruslan ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Moving some projects around
The idea was to cleanup openstack* organizations IIRC, but IMO we could do the same with stackforge too. On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov rkamaldi...@mirantis.com wrote: Murano is not the only project which has deprecated repositories. There are several abandoned repositories, for instance MRaaS [0]. Maybe it's about time to create something similar to Apache Attic [1] and move these repos outside of Stackforge? Ah, sorry. I missed the whole point of the original message. That's what Jim proposed to do. Shame on me. Ruslan ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra -- Sincerely yours, Sergey Lukjanov Sahara Technical Lead (OpenStack Data Processing) Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Moving some projects around
On 2014-03-27 18:47:23 +0400 (+0400), Sergey Lukjanov wrote: The idea was to cleanup openstack* organizations IIRC, but IMO we could do the same with stackforge too. CruftForge ;) -- Jeremy Stanley ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Moving some projects around
On 2014-03-26 10:50:49 -0700 (-0700), James E. Blair wrote: We've been discussing the thoroughly interesting problem of project taxonomy recently, and I'd like to describe what I think we've mostly decided we should do and make sure we're on the same page. [...] Works for me, and accurately captures what we discussed in IRC during/after the team meeting. -- Jeremy Stanley ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
[OpenStack-Infra] Moving some projects around
We've been discussing the thoroughly interesting problem of project taxonomy recently, and I'd like to describe what I think we've mostly decided we should do and make sure we're on the same page. If we are, I'll invite the TC to weigh in and if they think we're completely wrong, we can work on some policy. Move the following projects to the openstack-attic/ org (because they are no longer active projects though they had some degree of officialness about them at the time they were active): * openstack-dev/openstack-qa * openstack/melange * openstack/python-melangeclient * openstack/openstack-chef We should make these read-only as well. Leave openstack-dev/sandbox where it is. It's a useful tool for new openstack developers and third party CI systems -- it should be considered part of the openstack development process. Move openstack/python-openstackclient to stackforge. It's apparently a project without an official program. (Incidentally, this makes me sad.) Leave openstack/gantt where it is, but make it read-only. The current state of development is considered a dead end, but there is likely to be a future attempt (and therefore future openstack/gantt repository). Rather than rename it and rename it back, or rename it to something like openstack-attic/gant-mark-one, we think mothballing it and then replacing the entire branch with a merge commit for the second forklift attempt (like we did with keystone-lite) is the least silly option and actually faithfully represents development history. -Jim ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Moving some projects around
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:50 PM, James E. Blair jebl...@openstack.orgwrote: We've been discussing the thoroughly interesting problem of project taxonomy recently, and I'd like to describe what I think we've mostly decided we should do and make sure we're on the same page. If we are, I'll invite the TC to weigh in and if they think we're completely wrong, we can work on some policy. Move the following projects to the openstack-attic/ org (because they are no longer active projects though they had some degree of officialness about them at the time they were active): * openstack-dev/openstack-qa * openstack/melange * openstack/python-melangeclient * openstack/openstack-chef We should make these read-only as well. Leave openstack-dev/sandbox where it is. It's a useful tool for new openstack developers and third party CI systems -- it should be considered part of the openstack development process. Move openstack/python-openstackclient to stackforge. It's apparently a project without an official program. (Incidentally, this makes me sad.) Dean may be ready to propose that as a program. Have you asked? It might save moving it twice. Doug Leave openstack/gantt where it is, but make it read-only. The current state of development is considered a dead end, but there is likely to be a future attempt (and therefore future openstack/gantt repository). Rather than rename it and rename it back, or rename it to something like openstack-attic/gant-mark-one, we think mothballing it and then replacing the entire branch with a merge commit for the second forklift attempt (like we did with keystone-lite) is the least silly option and actually faithfully represents development history. -Jim ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
