On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 06:31 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 04:04 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 06:31 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On
I'll follow-up on the spec, but one thing Donald has been pointing out
for a while is that we don't use requirements.txt the way that pip
anticipates: the expected use is that a specific install (e.g. the
gate) will have a very specific list of requirements, caps etc, but
that the install_requires
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 06:31 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/20/2015 07:16 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/20/2015 12:26 AM, Adam Gandelman wrote:
Its more than just the naming. In the original
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/20/2015 07:16 PM,
On 02/20/2015 12:26 AM, Adam Gandelman wrote:
Its more than just the naming. In the original proposal,
requirements.txt is the compiled list of all pinned deps (direct and
transitive), while requirements.in http://requirements.in reflects
what people will actually use. Whatever is in
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 02:07 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 06:06 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/20/2015
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 03:36 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 02:07 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 06:06 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/20/2015 12:26 AM, Adam Gandelman wrote:
Its more than just the naming. In the original proposal,
requirements.txt is the compiled list of all pinned deps (direct and
transitive), while requirements.in http://requirements.in
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
It sounds like you are suggesting we take the tool we use to ensure that
all of OpenStack is installable together in a unified way, and change
it's installation so that it doesn't do that any more.
Which I'm fine with.
But
Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/20/2015 12:26 AM, Adam Gandelman wrote:
Its more than just the naming. In the original proposal,
requirements.txt is the compiled list of all pinned deps (direct and
transitive), while requirements.inhttp://requirements.in reflects
what people will actually use.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
wrote:
It'd be interesting to see what a distribution (canonical, redhat...)
would think about this movement. I know yahoo! has been looking into it for
similar reasons (but we are more flexibly then I think a packager such
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 06:06 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/20/2015 12:26 AM, Adam Gandelman wrote:
Its more than just the naming. In the original proposal,
requirements.txt is the compiled list of all pinned
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 02:07 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 06:06 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/20/2015 12:26 AM, Adam Gandelman wrote:
Its more than just the naming. In the original
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 03:17 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015, at 03:59 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com
wrote:
On
This creates a bit of a problem for downstream (packagers and probably
others) Shipping a requirements.txt with explicit pins will end up
producing an egg with a requires.txt that reflects those pins, unless there
is some other magic planned that I'm not aware of. I can't speak for all
packaging
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Adam Gandelman ad...@ubuntu.com wrote:
This creates a bit of a problem for downstream (packagers and probably
others) Shipping a requirements.txt with explicit pins will end up
producing an egg with a requires.txt that reflects those pins, unless there
is
Its more than just the naming. In the original proposal, requirements.txt
is the compiled list of all pinned deps (direct and transitive), while
requirements.in reflects what people will actually use. Whatever is in
requirements.txt affects the egg's requires.txt. Instead, we can keep
On 2015-02-18 10:00:31 -0500 (-0500), Doug Hellmann wrote:
I'm interested in seeing what that list looks like. I suspect we have
some libraries listed in the global requirements now that aren't
actually used
[...]
Shameless plug for https://review.openstack.org/148071 . It turns up
a lot in
On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 03:17 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 03:17 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 08:50 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 2/16/15, 16:08, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 02:08 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Feb
On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 03:17 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 08:50 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 2/16/15, 16:08, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 03:17 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 08:50 PM,
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 08:50 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 2/16/15, 16:08, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 02:08 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, at 01:01 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
Hey everyone,
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 08:50 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 2/16/15, 16:08, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 02:08 PM, Doug Hellmann
On 2/17/15, 16:27, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 08:50 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 2/16/15, 16:08, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
On 02/16/2015 08:50 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 2/16/15, 16:08, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 02:08 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, at 01:01 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
Hey everyone,
The os-ansible-deployment team was working on updates to add support
for
the
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, at 01:01 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
Hey everyone,
The os-ansible-deployment team was working on updates to add support for
the latest version of juno and noticed some interesting version
specifiers
introduced into global-requirements.txt in January. It introduced some
On 02/16/2015 02:08 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, at 01:01 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
Hey everyone,
The os-ansible-deployment team was working on updates to add support for
the latest version of juno and noticed some interesting version
specifiers
introduced into
On 2/16/15, 16:08, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 02/16/2015 02:08 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, at 01:01 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
Hey everyone,
The os-ansible-deployment team was working on updates to add support
for
the latest version of juno and noticed some
32 matches
Mail list logo
