Hi Marco
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Marco Ceppi
wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm rebooting this conversation because it never fully came to a
> resolution and since this topic was discussed a lot has happened in the
> Charm Ecosystem. I still hold firm, and a
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Billy Olsen
wrote:
> Secondly, I'm mildly concerned with the namespace of choice (using the
> shared charms. as the parent namespace). There may be a magical python 3ism
> that resolves the mixed development + packaged use of common
Cory,
Yeah, my understanding is that the namespace support in Python 3 is far
improved, and there was some support for it in Python 2.7 which still had
some unique issues from time to time. I'll play around with it a bit and if
I find anything worth mentioning I'll report back. At the very least,
I am very much in favor of this move forward. I’ve recently worked on
converting the charm-benchmark package to charms.benchmark; I see where having
cleaner namespaces make will make every charm author’s life easier.
That said, I know that transitioning to this new model is an epic undertaking,
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Marco Ceppi marco.ce...@canonical.com
wrote:
I can see how this helps for discoverability for those already pretty
intimate with the code base, but a lot of the key complaints we've gotten
around new authors getting started is there is just an overwhelming
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:00 AM Matt Bruzek matthew.bru...@canonical.com
wrote:
Thanks for the write up Marco.
I am particularly interested in growing the CLI aspect of charm-helpers to
aid authors who still use bash charms. Also cleaning up the docs so they
make sense and is easier to