I prefer the library to be named 'josh', kthxbye ;)
On 11/13/13 7:26 PM, "Clint Byrum" wrote:
>Excerpts from Michael Still's message of 2013-11-13 13:24:52 -0800:
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Eric Windisch
>>wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think it is a problem to remove the code in oslo first,
Excerpts from Michael Still's message of 2013-11-13 13:24:52 -0800:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Eric Windisch wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is a problem to remove the code in oslo first, as
> > long as no other oslo-incubator code uses it. Projects don't have to
> > sync the code and could
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Eric Windisch
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is a problem to remove the code in oslo first, as
> > long as no other oslo-incubator code uses it. Projects don't have to
> > sync the code and could always rev
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Eric Windisch wrote:
> >> Each project should directly use the standard uuid module or implement
> its
> >> own helper function to generate uuids if this patch gets in.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts on this change? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately it looks like that chan
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Eric Windisch wrote:
> I don't think it is a problem to remove the code in oslo first, as
> long as no other oslo-incubator code uses it. Projects don't have to
> sync the code and could always revert should that they do.
I strongly disagree. It stops projects fr
>> Each project should directly use the standard uuid module or implement its
>> own helper function to generate uuids if this patch gets in.
>>
>> Any thoughts on this change? Thanks.
>
>
> Unfortunately it looks like that change went through before I caught up on
> email. Shouldn't we have remove
On 13/11/13 12:49 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Doug Hellmann
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Zhongyue Luo
wrote:
Hi all,
We had a discussion of the modules that are incubated in Oslo.
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ice
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Zhongyue Luo wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We had a discussion of the modules that are incubated in Oslo.
>>
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-oslo-status
>>
>> One of the conclusions we came to
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Zhongyue Luo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We had a discussion of the modules that are incubated in Oslo.
>
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-oslo-status
>
> One of the conclusions we came to was to deprecate/remove uuidutils in
> this cycle.
>
> The first step in
usage questions)"
>> >
>>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:07 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> >
>>
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [ALL] Removing generate_uuid() from uuidutils
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We had a dis
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
> >>
> >> Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:07 AM
> >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> >> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
> >>
> >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [ALL] Removing generate_uu
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13 2013, John Griffith wrote:
>
>> Trivial or not, people use it and frankly I don't see any value at all
>> in removing it. As far as the "some projects want a different format
>> of UUID" that doesn't make a lot of sense to me
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13 2013, John Griffith wrote:
>
> > Trivial or not, people use it and frankly I don't see any value at all
> > in removing it. As far as the "some projects want a different format
> > of UUID" that doesn't make a lot of sense to
On Wed, Nov 13 2013, John Griffith wrote:
> Trivial or not, people use it and frankly I don't see any value at all
> in removing it. As far as the "some projects want a different format
> of UUID" that doesn't make a lot of sense to me but if that's what
> somebody wants they should write their o
t (not for usage questions)"
>> mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
>>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:07 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
>>
>> Subject: [ope
iling List
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [ALL] Removing generate_uuid() from uuidutils
Hi all,
We had a discussion of the modules that are incubated in Oslo.
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-oslo-status<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https
On 11/13/2013 08:48 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
> I recall a few cycles ago having str(uuid.uuid4()) replaced
> by generate_uuid(). There was actually a helper function in neutron
> (back when it was called quantum) and it was replaced. So now we are
> going back…
> I am not in favor of this change.
>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:07 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [openstack-dev]
On Wed, Nov 13 2013, Zhongyue Luo wrote:
> Any thoughts on this change? Thanks.
+2'ed. I'm pretty sure that helping other projects to help get rid of it
would be nice, if your time allows it. :)
--
Julien Danjou
// Free Software hacker / independent consultant
// http://julien.danjou.info
sig
Hi all,
We had a discussion of the modules that are incubated in Oslo.
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-oslo-status
One of the conclusions we came to was to deprecate/remove uuidutils in this
cycle.
The first step into this change should be to remove generate_uuid() from
uuidutils.
Th
20 matches
Mail list logo
