On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-05-20 15:28:48 +0200 (+0200), Martin Magr wrote:
> [...]
> > so from "This import will probably lead to the end of
> > monitoring-for-openstack project" it seems that project deletion
> > just was not performed at the end. Is anybod
On 2016-05-20 15:28:48 +0200 (+0200), Martin Magr wrote:
[...]
> so from "This import will probably lead to the end of
> monitoring-for-openstack project" it seems that project deletion
> just was not performed at the end. Is anybody against submitting
> patch to openstack-infra to delete the proje
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Simon Pasquier
wrote:
> Hello,
> You can find the rationale in the review [1] importing m.o.f. into o.t.m.
> Basically it was asked by the operators community to avoid the sprawl of
> repositories.
> BR,
> Simon
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248352/
>
Th
Hello,
You can find the rationale in the review [1] importing m.o.f. into o.t.m.
Basically it was asked by the operators community to avoid the sprawl of
repositories.
BR,
Simon
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248352/
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Martin Magr wrote:
> Greetings guys,
>
Greetings guys,
there is a duplication of code within openstack/osops-tools-monitoring
and openstack/monitoring-for-openstack projects.
It seems that m-o-f became part of o-t-m, but the former project wasn't
deleted. I was just wandering if there is a reason for the duplication (or
fork, consid