On 21 April 2015 at 09:27, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>
> On 04/20/2015 12:10 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>>
>>> If there's nothing majorly wrong mid-L, I'd like to release 1.0.0 just
>>> to get us into 'ok its stable' mentality.
>>
>>
>> I read that many packages modify the source code of libraries a
On 04/20/2015 12:10 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
If there's nothing majorly wrong mid-L, I'd like to release 1.0.0 just
to get us into 'ok its stable' mentality.
I read that many packages modify the source code of libraries and
applications to avoid a dependency to pbr at runtime. What's the
sta
On 21 April 2015 at 00:22, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> I believe Redhat patch it out. I don't think they should need to,
>> since we have explicit knobs for distros to use.
>
> pbr pulls pip which we don't want in RHEL. Example of patches in RDO:
>
> https://github.com/redhat-openstack/nova/commit/a1
On 04/20/2015 08:22 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> I believe Redhat patch it out. I don't think they should need to,
>> since we have explicit knobs for distros to use.
>
> pbr pulls pip which we don't want in RHEL. Example of patches in RDO:
>
> https://github.com/redhat-openstack/nova/commit/a199
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/20/2015 02:22 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> I believe Redhat patch it out. I don't think they should need
>> to, since we have explicit knobs for distros to use.
>
> pbr pulls pip which we don't want in RHEL. Example of patches in
> RDO:
>
> h
> I don't think its a bug in the applications.
swift gets its version using pkg_resources, or falls back to pbr:
https://github.com/openstack/swift/blob/master/swift/__init__.py
I mean that other applications may do something similar?
Victor
_
> I believe Redhat patch it out. I don't think they should need to,
> since we have explicit knobs for distros to use.
pbr pulls pip which we don't want in RHEL. Example of patches in RDO:
https://github.com/redhat-openstack/nova/commit/a19939c8f9a7b84b8a4d713fe3d26949e5664089
https://github.com/
On 20 April 2015 at 22:10, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> If there's nothing majorly wrong mid-L, I'd like to release 1.0.0 just
>> to get us into 'ok its stable' mentality.
>
> I read that many packages modify the source code of libraries and
> applications to avoid a dependency to pbr at runtime. Wha
> If there's nothing majorly wrong mid-L, I'd like to release 1.0.0 just
> to get us into 'ok its stable' mentality.
I read that many packages modify the source code of libraries and applications
to avoid a dependency to pbr at runtime. What's the status of this issue? Is
pbr still used/required
So, we've fixed up the semver logic.
I went through the review backlog and merged the stuff that was good.
One thing in particular was problematic - prompting me to put up
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174646/ - the commit this backs out
added per-platform requirements.txt files, which in ligh
10 matches
Mail list logo
